*** Unless you give them the material under contention how do you expect them to judge it?
Sheeesh! At 12:01 PM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty wrote: >Hope some enlightened netter who understand ordinary >english can explain me which of your argument is true >-- > >1) The Fed Research site is PSEUDO scientific >OR >2) Fed Research publishes unadulterated garbage >OR >3) Fed research materials are correct but we are >unable to comprehend it. >OR >All three above > > >OR May be >The Fed research experts graduated from a Desi School >sporting the name of some Christian saint > > > >>>My heart goes out for you. > >>>But if you don't agree with what I wrote you can >>>pull the material >>>together and present it to netters. Most of us >>>understand ordinary >>>English here. > > > > > > > > >At 11:27 AM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >wrote: >>All three are your arguments so how can we, >>half-brained and what not folks figure out what you >>are trying to say ... it is too difficult to >>understand such high level moving arguments. >> >>I am yet to recover from shock how infalliable BiDesi >>experts wrote same piece like a Desi who graduated >>from a school/college sporting the name of some >>Christian saint >> >> >>>>Why don't you tell us which? >> >>>>Are you not upto it? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>At 10:57 AM -0700 10/18/07, Krishnendu Chakraborty >>wrote: >>> >But the problem is NOT what the book may >contain, >>it >>>is the >>>COMPREHENSION of it. >>> >>>>I will bet a dollar that the report did not imply ( >>>>to anyone who >>>>reads and comprehends ordinary English) >>> >>> >>>Hmmm .... a different argument then "Yet another >>>PSEUDO scientific account" OR "unadulterated >>>garbage". >>> >>>With such rapid shift in arguments, we, the >>>half-brained, dimwits are confused what is true -- >>> >>>1) The Fed Research site is PSEUDO scientific >>>OR >>>2) Fed Research publishes unadulterated garbage >>>OR >>>3) Fed research materials are correct but we are >>>unable to comprehend it. >>>OR >>>All three above >>> >>>> >If the piece of info is garbage (indicates >there >>>may >>>>be more garbage) , it implies that --- >>> >>> >>> >>>>**** There may very well be. Is that unthinkable? >>> >>> >>>>But the problem is NOT what the book may contain, >it >>>is the >>>COMPREHENSION of it. >>> >>>>I will bet a dollar that the report did not imply ( >>>>to anyone who >>>>reads and comprehends ordinary English) >>>>that the SW monsoons go to the NE but cannot drop >>>>its load there, >>>>so it veers westwards >>>>and trudging over the Gangetic plains unloads it >at >>>>Dilli and >>>Rajasthan instead; because of Global Warming or what >>>have you > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ >Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. >http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html > > > > >_______________________________________________ >assam mailing list >[email protected] >http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org _______________________________________________ assam mailing list [email protected] http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
