On 25/10/2007, Vihan Pandey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/25/07, krishnakant Mane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > following are my coments and reaction to this thread and I want this > > to be the last one. > > that is NOT your decision. > > > firstly I can Understand that vihan reacted without complete knowledge > > of what was actually said in the conference. > > so although his feelings are justified but those were not just a bit > > rood but also targetted towards the wrong people. > > if you bothered to make sure that the interviewer got his facts right > and made that a pre-condition before giving the interview or even > asked for a review of the article before it went online and had it > corrected it accordingly it would not have gotten my strong response. > In fact i would have giving my congratulations. > I have handeled the press more than your experience and even after getting the things right, these people have a habbit of not printing the right thing, I don't go to the printing press to see if what ever has been varified varified varyfied is being printed. > > he is too young and I can understand his over excitement in which he > > may have targetted his feelings to the wrong person at the wrong > > place. > > With this statement you clearly prove that understanding is not a > function of age. You have NO RIGHT to make that statement since you > did not have the foresight to know the ramifications of what you said > in pubic and had absolutely no understanding of how to speak to the > press. I need not learn how to talk to press from you. for your kind information there are audio records of my prdess press conference and you can send them to forensic lab to varify my voice. and by the way I had been a reporter myself and even I had done reporting when you were a kid. and I was thinking thta before this email that you were reacting out of lak of knowledge but even after the clearification from people like nagarjun, if you still point fingers at the wrong person then let me tel you that ur your arrogance will take you no where. you say that I said the wrong things even without hearing my breafing. that itself reflects your level of maturity and understanding. and one more thing I don't do work for your congradulations or appreciation and I very well know what I do. at least when I was of your age I was never as rood to tell the person that I am the only knowledgeble person and "who the hel are you?" at least after knowing whos mistake it was, I would never send such emails saying "you absolutely don't know how to speak etc." that to without knowing the experience of the person in question. I need not mention as nagarjun already did, that I not just breafed about the freedom aspect but also underlined it. and I think you better learn to react properly, your thoughts were exactly as mine were but your words are absolutely smakked with arogance. regards, Krishnakant. > > Don't go about touting wisdom as a response to messing up. > > In fact you ought to apologise for not making sure how the article turned > out. > > > my only advice to him is that when it comes to comenting about such > > things, first confirm from a person who is more experienced about what > > was the reality. > > You still don't get it do you, that article has probably been viewed > by hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people all over the world. > How many do you think are going about confirming what is true and what > isn't? The damage has been done because you were not careful. > > i mearly pointed it out if it wasn't me it would have been someone else. > > >as an cineor person with 10+ years of experience, my > > only advice is "think before you go on records ". > > i think that is a highly ridiculous statement to make as ``senior" > people with ``experience" would know how to handle a situation like > this. > > Did you THINK before going on the record? Believe me i certainly did > and i would gladly do it all over again all the same. > > >that will leave > > less chances to oppologise later. > > i haven't and have no reason to apologise to anyone. > > You screwed up you MUST apologise to the GNU and GNOME projects. > > > nagarjun, thanks for responding late but only after confirming things. > > I have been a reporter myself for about 5 years > > Either that is a lie or you are seriously stupid. > > If you have been a reporter for 5 years this should NEVER have have > happened. > > >and now into this IT > > field for 10 years, I very well understand the dynamics of how things > > get presented by the media. > > Either that is a lie or you are VERY seriously stupid. > > > as nagarjun rightly said, we need to seriously speak to the media. > > secondly, I don't think we must insult the gnu/linux project by only > > giving importance to the "free of charge " aspect. > > if you really believe that then you ought to make sure such incidents > don't happen. > > > although when a screen reader would cost rs. 70000 for a single > > license, cost factor is equally important for an average blind person, > > given today's economic condition of those people. employment is > > difficult to come because if the employer has to pay 70000 rs just to > > employ a blind employee, he will think 10 times before doing that. > > and what if the blind person then leaves the job? > > the investment is waisted. > > but there are other more important issues as well. > > think about this case, > > one of my studant named Balaram from Kerala had a job offer from Taj > group. > > they had a software which he was expected to use. > > but the proprietory software in question was not at all compatible > > with what he was supposed to use. > > now, had the source code of this software been open, it would have the > > possibility of modification and thus being adopted to that particular > > software. but nither the company took responsibility nor released any > > part of the software for modification. > > so the issue is not about cost (the taj group was ready to pay in the > > above case ), the issue is about the freedom to modify that software > > and after that use those modifications for who ever got that > > opportunity to be employed. > > so one should understand that freedom is not just the matter of > > philosophy but it applies to practical life. > > No one has disputed the practical benefits of free software on this > thread. Or are you justifying your mistake by saying the article was > absolutely fine? If the case is latter please don't go about giving > people the illusion that you are pro freedom in software. > > Regards, > > - vihan > > -- > http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers >
-- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
