>1. it was a election publicity stunt by govt >2. no minorities were given chance to be labour >3. its all a fake, everything from india is a fake >4. its a conspiracy against assam (as usual) >5. why 140 yr old bridge was there in first place >6. has anyone done a audit of cost incurred >7. its delhis fault! (as usual) >8. it proves india is a sectarian country >9. St. louis under your guidance did a 10km bridge in 2 hrs. >10. incite a tangential flamewar to hide the original issue
*** Those were excellent attempts at reading my mind. But it is really not a very fruitful pursuit to try and PREDICT what MY responses might be. It is a sure way to get oneself upset with no other conceivable benefit. A far better approach would have been to deal with the issue in point. *** In this instance the issue was with the news report, the information contained in ( or missing from) the report , and if that was ADEQUATE to judge the MAIN IDEA as expressed in the headline/subject title. Was it adequate for a technically highly trained and obviously exposed to the world around person like yourself? Maybe it was. If it was, we might have attempted to explain why it was. That, I would submit,would have been a more productive endeavor. That also could have put me in my place for asking outrageous and/or otherwise embarassing questions, exposing my ignorant, anti-Indian tendencies. >I never address any of my informational type posts to you and would prefer >you not >comment on them. my posts are meant for the more serious posters here. *** Now, now! We don't need to get THAT protective of a newspaper report do we? It was hardly out of the ordinary bit of incisive desi-reporting, heh-heh. Nobody was accusing Deepjyoti of either malfeasance or propaganda. The only negative connotation might have been in being perceived as gullible or simple minded. Nothing to get so worked up about, to take it personally. More so since it is not an incurable condition. All it takes is shedding some hindu-nationalism baggage to become able to see things more clearly. cm :-) At 5:31 PM +0530 9/26/03, deepjyoti kakati wrote: >>So when you crow about all of it done in 9 hours, WITHOUT telling of the >>details, the size and complexity of the tasks involved, the story means >>very little. > >CM even if the article had mentioned the bridges being 1 km long each , you >would say > >1. it was a election publicity stunt by govt >2. no minorities were given chance to be labour >3. its all a fake, everything from india is a fake >4. its a conspiracy against assam (as usual) >5. why 140 yr old bridge was there in first place >6. has anyone done a audit of cost incurred >7. its delhis fault! (as usual) >8. it proves india is a sectarian country >9. St. louis under your guidance did a 10km bridge in 2 hrs. >10. incite a tangential flamewar to hide the original issue > >I never address any of my informational type posts to you and would prefer >you not >comment on them. my posts are meant for the more serious posters here. > >thanks for your consideration. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Instant message with integrated webcam using MSN Messenger 6.0. Try it now >FREE! http://msnmessenger-download.com > >_______________________________________________ >Assam mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam _______________________________________________ Assam mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
