On Dec 11, 2009, at 2:35 PM, ck raju wrote: > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Amol Hatwar <[email protected]> wrote: >> 3. If Free and Open conjures up images of anarchy and rebellion, well, >> then that is what it essentially is. Anything that upsets the established >> order, or is inherently revolutionary brings along with it good elements >> of violence, conflict and friction. More often than not, it is the >> established >> order that draws first blood. > > Is it really a kind of order here that we *cut/bleed* someone and then > move, or is it that we make divergent groups to abandon their > *cut/bleed* ideology ? On the Free part, it is freedom to *use, > study, modify, share, publish* etc - definitely not freedom to *cut, > bleed*, which indicates an aggression with violence.
Please note my usage of "If" in the beginning of the sentence. The violence in cut and bleed purely depends on the perspective you choose to look at. Cutting-Edge and Bleeding-Edge don't involve cutting or making someone bleed. Perhaps you're taking the terms too literally. The terms however, do symbolize sharpness, being ahead of the curve and being the state-of-the-art at something. A google search should confirm that :-) Utilizing one's own freedom has systemic effects. Against an established order, the reaction is always of violence. I don't imply physical violence here mind you. The violence is in thoughts, ideas, strategies and PR. If one believes one is right in using his/her freedoms and doesn't mind other people utilizing those very freedoms at the same time - one shouldn't pay attention, be concerned or even be afraid of violence. I know I am right. Our country has produced boundless mythological classics on this very topic :-). Cheers, Amol Hatwar _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
