The usually very brilliant Sam Kelekar suggests that there was a facile way to do 'due diligence' i.e. Google
For, he wrote the following: [Samir Kelekar] : Buf if indeed one needs to do due diligence, one could google "Sapna Shahani" and one would know if the person is fake or not. Dear Samirbab, may I suggest that making assumptions that someone did not do due diligence isn't a smart thing to do. Here are a couple of pointers: [1] How does one prove conclusively that the person writing anywhere as Sapna is actually named Sapna. [2] How does one prove conclusively that the person writing as Sapna Shahani on Google is actually the Sapna Shahani who can be googled And ....more importantly ....Samir bab (probably) overlooked Reference 1 (infra) in my previous post wrt Sapna Now, please vide Reference 2 (infra) If the Sapna who appeared on GoaNet is the same Sapna from Google ......tell me, Samirbab, that the Inquisition question was a mere query to seek knowledge or have an intellectual discussion based on Rough Guides. Thanks Samirbab ..... and may I suggest that Not all Goans are that naive. jc Reference [1] the difference between paranoia and due diligence: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2009-June/178873.html jc wrote: Some of the topics they are known to concentrate are the following: 1. Inquistion 2. 3. 4. 5. The Da Vinci Code 6. I invite this person (Sapna Sahani) who has suddenly sprung up on GoaNet via the Post Graduate College for Rough Guides, to advise us of the following: a: b: c: Have you written/presented in public ..... on any of the above (1-6) topics ? d: have you (or anyone on your behalf) ever claimed to have answers to the Da Vinci Code? Reference [2]: www.betv.org/documents/davincicode_anchorlead.doc
