You are again arguing old issues.Your arguments also does not make any sense.
*** When one doesn't have anything to rebut a point with, pleading
no-comprendo is one way to respond. But it is not very useful to
anybody. Damages credibility.
Debate and move, not argue
*** I am extremely curious about the difference.
In a formal DEBATE there are ground rules. When one makes a set of
points, the opponents are expected to provide their viewpoints, if
they don't agree. Or rebut what the proponents offer. Yes, one can
say she does not understand, and she will be excused or ask what
SPECIFICALLY he does not comprehend. But in the process she loses the
right to lecture or set down rules for others. In an informal debate,
like this one, the opponents are not only not putting forth their own
arguments stating their positions, they are being ARGUMENTATIVE --
only raising objections obsessively!
An ARGUMENT , according to Webster's dictionary, is a "reason put
forward for or against something" OR it is "a discussion" OR " a
debate" OR "a dispute" OR
"a summary of the contents of a book"
Am I missing something? Or is it an attempt to give new meanings to
English words ? That would not be very persuasive for people who play
no-comprendo to the arguments set forth.
>That will be a serious problem to think it as a problem you cannot
help. This means you are not serious about the issue.
*** Hmmm!
At 11:23 AM -0500 3/2/07, Barua, Rajen wrote:
You are again arguing old issues.Your arguments also does not make any sense.
Debate and move, not argue even if you have proved that you just
like that without any end.
If some missed it that is a problem I can't help.
That will be a serious problem to think it as a problem you cannot
help. This means you are not serious about the issue.
Rajen
From: Chan Mahanta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Barua, Rajen; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Assam] A Question for The 'Second Tier' Proponents
I gave very detailed answers on why sovereignty is an indispensable
means to achieving the ends I cited.
If some missed it that is a problem I can't help.
But those of us who are serious about finding answers and thus are
sincere about looking into the relevant issues, at least on paper,
ought to offer their rationale for what they propose, if they
propose something. Indulging in circular arguments lead nowhere, as
you so eloquently stated earlier.
And if the proponents of the 'second-tier' are unable to articulate
a thought as to why or what they think or believe could be
alternatives to sovereignty, then why do they DEMAND those form
others? So that they can sit in judgement and denounce to assert
their own superior intellects or their righteousness?
To refuse to state what those second-tier ideas might be, or what
they may address, points to only one thing: An all too transparent
ploy to avoid acknowledging the obvious.
I can't believe we have again regressed to this, even after all these years.
At 10:29 AM -0500 3/2/07, Barua, Rajen wrote:
Let me answer this with another question:
Why you need Sovereignty? What you cannot achieve with Autonomy
that you wish will be achieved through Sovereignty? (I think I
asked this question before with no answer, not that I prefer
autonomy to soverignty though). That too is this for Assam alone or
the entire NE?
Anyhow I have given my views of Sovereignty of the NE not Assam
alone. In your response I see only the word Assam and not NE.
All these questions need to be addressed.
And note what was true in 2004 may no longer be true in 2007. The
pendulum is ever swinging as you know. You need to address new
ground realties of the day. Does ULFA in 2007 have any mileage
left? May be it is running on credit.
And if in 2007, you are asking the same question that was asked in
2004, it seems you are not moving anywhere.
Please hurry.
Rajen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barua, Rajen
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:51 AM
To: Chan Mahanta; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Assam] A Question for The 'Second Tier' Proponents
>*** Why do you want autonomy Rajen?
Did I say that? Please try to stick to your main point instead of
opening new frontiers of argument with no goal. I have given my
views Sovereignty issue I have not seen you moving a single inch
from there yet.
Rajen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chan Mahanta
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Assam] A Question for The 'Second Tier' Proponents
I am re-posting a page from assamnet debates from Dec 13, 2004,
where this 'second tier' thing was proposed by some of our esteemed
and 'pragmatic' friends.
So I asked the highlighted question. But no answer ever came. It was like
a 24000 volt live-wire--not to be touched. WHY? Because that would
lead to examining the issues that gave rise to the insurgency,
something our ever-so-righteous friends are unwilling to get near
of.
But perhaps those like Chitta, Nayan etc. will. We will see.
>Only hope is if we can, in the prsent process, make ULFA
overground to work for an Autonomous >Assam with the support of the
Assamese people.
*** Why do you want autonomy Rajen?
What is the matter with what is operating?
What will you do with autonomy? What would your recommendations be
to the people of Assam as to what they can or should do with
autonomy? And how much autonomy? What should this autonomy give
Assam that it does not have now?
cm
The information contained in this e-mail is intended only for the
individual or entity to whom it is addressed.
Its contents (including any attachments) may contain confidential
and/or privileged information.
If you are not an intended recipient you must not use, disclose,
disseminate, copy or print its contents.
If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by
reply e-mail and delete and destroy the message.
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
