On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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)) > > The response by *Lakshmi Chaudhry <http://www.firstpost.com/author/chaudhry> ** *makes Roys article worth reading twice. Second time with a decent filter on the serious vs. the overbearing points of the original article. Every once in a while, Silk helps surface such an interesting topic. Thanks guys. - Vinit
