On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Amol Hatwar <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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. > > > I know I am right. Our country has produced boundless mythological classics > on this very topic :-). > > Well, let's not keep on carrying on with another myth, in that case. Any business model that emphasises synonymising 'cutting and bleeding' with 'excellence' won't be completely kosher. We have, on the contrary, numerous examples from history, the more recent of which are probably not completely mangled from reality, of attempts to do things with violence, and we do not have a high record of success with them. I do not think we have even one, for that matter. I have every respect for the view on violence expressed in the Gita, for instance, but that does not mean that I set about beating up everyone I know, or think that path will lead me to peace. To echo what KK said, in the war of words, it is the sustainable ones that will bring lasting value, while the flash-in-the-pans will fall by history's wayside. -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
