On 18/05/12 18-May-2012;10:32 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Saw that one, fantastic article.
>> http://www.firstpost.com/living/reading-arundhati-roy-the-high-price-of- >> toxic-rage-251377.html >> >> What to me seemed like a sensible response to Roy's essay. >> >> Sruthi I'm not sure I agree, with either Suresh or Sruthi. The sense I got from the article is on the lines of "so what if most of her arguments are wrong? Some of them are right, and they are important." [1] To paraphrase Charles Babbage, I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a conclusion. Where is the data? The evidence? That the arguments are *important*, to start with, and then that they are *right*? Argument by assertion is not convincing to me, either from Arundhati Roy, or from Lakshmi Chaudhry [2]. [1] Insert "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" analogy here. [2] Who may well be right. I'm making an argument based on principle here. -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
