Diana, you and Edwin are most welcome to meet me in Margao even otherwise.
So, Diana that was your philosophy behind using 'that line' as a phrase amounting to analogy! Now let me write few lines on 'Analogy.' Although 'analogies' are one of the most prolific communication tools in the English language, used in every field of human endeavor, it often fails where 'persuasion' is the ultimate goal! Framer of 'analogy' always considers it is simple and straightforward to understand but unfortunately gets interpreted in unwanted complexity, opening doors to 'you..me..' type exchanges! This mainly happens because to counter one 'Analogy' another 'Analogy' is given a birth and this cycle goes on and on creating more and more complications than simplification! The very same thing we are presently experiencing (and will continue to witness/experience until 2014 general elections are over) how political parties trigger complications and create turbulences over each other's 'analogy.' Louts Genevie and Dantel Cooper of Litigation Strategies Ltd., explains pros and cons of 'Analogy' in their booklet titled 'For The Defense: Why ANALOGIES Often Fails.' Knowing this, I requested explanation from you to the usage of 'the line used by you.' Coming back to subject under discussion, Diana, would you like to reread your responses and check whether your responses answer the basic subject under discussion! Your responses (and deleted words 'church thinker' from subject line) give a feeling of trying to deflect the main issue under discussion and attempting to provide a soft cover with saying 'forget the past ..think of better tomorrow.' This is no doubt a good philosophy, but for a historian 'past' is more important than 'present.' And if we allow modern historians to interfere with well settled past history, our posterity will blame us and they will learn wrong history. This is my concern! Diana, the main issue in the subject line is: whether Hindus were there in Goa before Portuguese landed in Goa OR not! And you are yet to answer this! U. G. Barad Message: 6 Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 09:53:20 +0530 From: "Edwin/Diana Pinto" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Goanet] There were no Hindus in Goa before Portuguese Message-ID: <4CF37A26238B41DCA7488BF481771F3D@CorpcommPC> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original U.G. Barad wrote Your explanation, appended herein below under caption 'YOUR RECENT REPLY', does not explain/elaborate nor expands the meaning and correlation of words: 'framing'; 'doctor'; 'prescription'; 'swallow' and 'medicine' used by you in that line. Since I did not get the clarity on this line and more specifically for words used in that line, I requested you to explain! And if you cannot explain/expand the line w.r.t. words used by you, let's forget it! We will consider the exchange of messages is closed for good with no answer. What say? Of course I can explain. Why would I say things to you that I cannot explain. This phrase was just an analogy, which I think most people would understand. However, if you didn't manage to understand it, then let me simplify it even further. The doctor referred to are the Gods and prophets from whom our scriptures are derived. The scriptures are akin to a doctor's prescription for a better life. But we only get better if we swallow the medicine prescribed, not if we just honour images of our doctor and keep reading the prescription without swallowing the medicine (that is implement the advice and instructions given to us in the scriptures.) Let me know if you still do not understand, then Edwin and I will be happy to meet with you personally in your home town of Margao and explain it to you even further. Diana
