On 10/5/07, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 2007-10-05 09:04:40 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny.
> >
> > Where did tyranny come into the picture? [...]
> > Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to ma
On 10/4/07, shiv sastry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 04 Oct 2007 3:05 pm, ashok _ wrote:
> > AIDS
> > actually originated from an american polio vaccine trial gone wrong.
>
> Isn't the polio vaccine designed to make Muslims infertile?
Timba!
Cheeni
At 2007-10-05 09:04:40 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny.
>
> Where did tyranny come into the picture? [...]
> Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a
> person stop.
Oh, you mean those genteel demonstrations of di
Thaths wrote:
> Because the tyranny of the masses is still a tyranny.
Where did tyranny come into the picture? Don't remember anybody ordering
someone to cease and desist. I used "tell" someone to cease and desist.
Not "allow" was used in the sense of using public outcry to make a
person stop.
Venky TV wrote:
> I know only one other "Venky" here. The other one is a "Venkat". Nah
> nah nah nah naaah nah! So there!
This is the "other Venkat". You are right, I prefer Venki not Venky.
On Thursday 04 Oct 2007 3:05 pm, ashok _ wrote:
> AIDS
> actually originated from an american polio vaccine trial gone wrong.
Isn't the polio vaccine designed to make Muslims infertile?
shiv
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that
> the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop
> doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where
> people tell a writer to c
On 10/4/07, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'd say gullibility would be belief in something illogical without
> realising it's illogical. Religious belief (very often) is a
> conscious choice to believe in something irrational.
Fair enough, though I'd expect the majority of the hard-cor
On 10/4/07, Venky TV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote:
> >
> > >If people are gullible enough to believe something,
> > >they should be allowed to.
> >
> > Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible"
On 10/3/07, Deepa Mohan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote:
>
> >If people are gullible enough to believe something,
> >they should be allowed to.
>
> Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible",
> which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religiou
On 10/4/07, Srini Ramakrishnan wrote:
>
> Call me gullible, I found the piece believable. The right wing think
> tanks have some pretty wild ideas, I wouldn't put it past some of them
> to dream of a right wing dictatorship.
>
I don't think its being gullible. many of these conspiracy theories
go
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Of course she should be allowed to write. Of course it was an opinion
> piece. It may have some truth in it. But it is misleading and the
> gullible believe it to be the truth. If they believe in the "rapture",
> this is much more believ
On 10/4/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that
> the people don't "allow" someone to write crap by telling him to stop
> doing it? I say "allow" in the humblest form, if there is one, where
> people tell a writer t
Udhay Shankar N wrote:
>
> If that doesn't make sense, consider this one: "Virtue is triangular".
> True or false? Discuss.
V, r and u are the three points of the triangle. I,t and e are the sides.
Deepa Mohan wrote:
> And I also object to anyone being "allowed" to do anything...it
> reminds of the Omani minister who told me, "in Oman women are allowed
> to be the equal of men."
Why is "allowed" always associated with a government? Can it not be that
the people don't "allow" someone to write
ashok _ wrote:
> Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be
> religious freedom. If people are gullible enough to believe something,
> they should be allowed to.
Good idea, let's do away with religion.
Deepa Mohan wrote [at 12:25 PM 10/3/2007] :
Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible",
which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith,
there are only different beliefs..if someone has a belief that hes
horse is the tenth avatar of Vishnu, do I have ra
On 10/3/07, ashok_ wrote:
>If people are gullible enough to believe something,
>they should be allowed to.
Well..I would take exception, on principle, to that word "gullible",
which I think is a value judgement. In matters of religious faith,
there are only different beliefs..if someone has a bel
ashok _ wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote:
> > that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such
> articles
> > are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big
> Going by that argument, the first thing that would disappear would be
> religious freedom.
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote:
> The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the receivers, not the powers
> that be. I believe that some percentage of people who read such articles
> are gullible enough to believe it. Freedom of speech is abused big time
> to such a point that it has become a jo
On 10/3/07, Venkat Mangudi wrote:
>
> Funny, I was reading this piece on the same topic. Nice one in the New
> Yorker...
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=2
>
>
What struck me most about the speech, were the answers that the
audience expected. I thi
ashok _ wrote:
> I watched the full speech and qa of ahmadinejad at columbia Univ. It seemed
> to me (by the nature of some of the questions put to him) that he has
> been painted as some kind of modern day hitler by the media in
> america. Its probably just a matter of time
> before bombs start r
On 03-Oct-07, at 7:21 AM, Thaths wrote:
Naomi Klein is a fairly respected writer among the Left in the US. And
the article you referred to was an opinion piece. Even if Naomi's
opinion was misled or wrong (one cannot have false opinions, merely
wrong-headed ones), I think she deserves being "all
Thaths wrote:
> Your precise wording was: "and outrageous if they are not and allowed
> to write". The outrage in that statement seems to be directed equally
> at the falsity (if the report was false) and at the journalist being
> "allowed to write".
The "allowed to write" was directed at us, the
On 10/2/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2. It these events are not true and the "journalists" are writing it, I
> find it outrageous that they are misleading the readers.
Outrage is justified.
> Where is free speech being attacked? Besides, how on earth does it
> matter to anybody
Thaths wrote:
>> Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed
>> to write...
>
> I find your position on free speech fascinating. I would like to find
> out more about where else you would like to not "allow" people to
> express their opinions. Please add me to your mail
Thaths wrote:
On 10/2/07, ashok _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we are "at war" in
a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the
globe
We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.
Huh? weren't we at war with Eurasia?
... sorry, I've been read
On 10/2/07, ashok _ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > we are "at war" in
> > a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the
> > globe
We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.
Thaths
--
Bart: I want to be emancipated.
Homer: Emancipated?! Don't y
On 10/2/07, Venkat Mangudi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > Do you think the things are outrageous because they are true, or
> > because they are not true?
> Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed
> to write...
I find your position on free speech
> we are "at war" in
> a "long war" - a war without end, on a battlefield described as the
> globe
I watched the full speech and qa of ahmadinejad at columbia Univ. It seemed
to me (by the nature of some of the questions put to him) that he has
been painted as some kind of modern day hitler by t
Eugen Leitl wrote:
> Try reddit and heise (achtung, kraut) as well.
Thanks, will try.
> Do you think the things are outrageous because they are true, or
> because they are not true?
Outrageous if they are true, and outrageous if they are not and allowed
to write...
On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 06:44:45PM +0530, Venkat Mangudi wrote:
> A new twist on the "state of the nation".
>
> Maybe I am just finding the time to read more emails and del.icio.us,
Try reddit and heise (achtung, kraut) as well.
> but I am reading an increasing number of articles stating totally
A new twist on the "state of the nation".
Maybe I am just finding the time to read more emails and del.icio.us,
but I am reading an increasing number of articles stating totally
outrageous things. Is it just me?
http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/130839-Fascist+America%2C+in+10+easy+
33 matches
Mail list logo
