The material, including your various moving arguments,
are already in this forum. Netters are very well
aware how the arguments shifted ... not for the first
time though
Next time, before ascribing something on "Desi School
sporting the name of some Christian saint" just check
your backyard. May be the author of Wiki is one of
your home grown expert researcher !
>>*** 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
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a vacation? Get great deals
to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
http://travel.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
