On 7 February 2010 09:42, Rajan P. Parrikar <[email protected]> wrote:
> When I posted this on Goanet, the alleged journo Frederick > Noronha rushed to Sharma-ji's and Architect-bab's defence (I > am sure Sharmaji will figure in his list of "101 Great CyberBhaile"). > Admin. Frederick Noronha claimed that it was my 300mm lens > that was to blame (* see below for links to the Goanet archive). > Joe, I think it is your lens that is lying. Or maybe you have > photoshopped your image to make the tiny farmhouse look > like a mansion. Check with Admin. Noronha. > * The entire thread about Admin. Noronha's 300mm lens fantasy > is at the following link - > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30023.html The point I made is here, and I stand by it: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30015.html Quote: While Rajan Prabhu Parrikar is doing a good job in pointing to the concretisation of Goa, questions need to, and have already, been raised about the selective manner in which issues are being highlighted. Unquote Secondly, it was architect Nachinolkar who raised questions about Rajan's lens: Quote Architect Ketak S Nachinolkar, a professional who worked on the farm-house in Batim, has asked questions about the impact of a 300mm zoom lens and the resultant images these throw up. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goaheritage/message/700 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/goaheritage/message/690 Unquote Incidentally, Rajan Parrikar was also claiming that the house belonged to Kiran Dhingra (the former Chief Secretary of Goa): http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg23099.html But then, what's a few facts when it comes to Rajan-style campaigning? Of course, my goal isn't to waste too much time in the bitterness flowing out of "campaigning". FN
