| Username |
Post |
| ashu |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 11:21 AM
>Ashu:
>I think you got some of my comments wrongly.
Well, no.
Your explanations are simply not relevant to the issue at hand or, even if they are, not convincing.
I believe in writing with clarity, simplicity, and with logic, evidence and force, and think that it's up to readers to
decide whether I have succeeded or failed.
My attitude is: If the readers get some of my
comments "wrongly", then I must have done a lousy job explaining my points in the
first place.
Likewise, if I indeed did get some your comments "wrongly", as you claim here, then you and you alone must accept the responsibility of having done a lousy job at explaining things here.
Being polite, earlier, I could only say that you were entitled to your opinions, and that was that. Obviously, my nudge was not enough
for you, and I see that I now need to sledgehammer the point home.
>First, what I meant about the visibility of
>Himalayas was not meant to take literally.
>In another note, People may have felt >better,
>but to say that all of suddenly Himalayas
>are
>clear, and air is good is simply an
>overstatement behooving to commercials.
Please re-read that WSJ article. The report quotes consumers who appreciate cleaner air.
The fact remains that a range of the Himalayas is now more visible from downtown Kathmandu today than it was, say, in 1997.
Sure, a lot of factors could have contributed to this visibility, and the plying of Safa Tempos on the streets could be one major
one.
And that's all there is to this "cleaner Himalayas" imagery in the WSJ. But if you want to read more into the report, then that's your wish which need NOT be shared
by others.
>Come
>
on, all those minibuses(those second world
>war period models of Mercedez), the old
>trucks dragged mercilessly by the cupidity
>of unscrupulous owners, they still ply in
>the
>road of KTM.
Yes. But what's your point? What's all this
got to do with that WSJ report?
Look, I don't expect the Wall Street Journal to cover ALL the problems of Nepal's transport industry in one report. But if that's what you expect, then, well, that's your expectation, which, again, need NOT be shared by other people.
>(By the way, lugubrious is not same as
>pessimistic!, is it?)
Take it as a GRE analogy sample:
pessmistic:lugubrious :: optimistic:radiant
>Why not you ask Bimal to publish his info in
>this website for public consumption.I think
>that is better than I asking him for info so
>personally. Anyway, thanks for forwarding
>`his
>email.
Well, instead of assuming what you have just done, why not ask first -- in an open-minded manner -- whether Bimal has published his findings somewhere?
FYI, Bimal has.
Check out the past issues of The Nepal
Digest (www.nepal.org) and look for EV messages.
Better yet, send him an email, and ask him
to put you in their Electric Vehicle email
list.
>What I was pointing out is the recent
>problem
>faced by electrification of vehicles.
>but we
>both are probably not expert on such
>vehicles.
Look, whatever I need to know, I can teach myself by consulting appropriate
resources and experts. And so can hundreds of other smart Nepalis everywhere.
Teaching ourselves stuff we need to know
is the basic skill we all learnt at our universities.
So, don't try to skirt the issue or intimidate others by hinting that we are incapable of discussing or understanding the basics of electric vehicle ko technical issues just because we are not engineers.
That's an unwarranted insult to any reasonably intelligent Nepali.
More to the point, the Wall Street Journal
is NOT an engineering journal. It caters to intelligent, educated laypersons (NOT specialists).
For its readers, I think it did a good job explaining the challenges and promises of Nepal's Safa tempo industry.
Again, if that's not good enough for you, then, so be it.
>However, I have worked on several
>computer controlled environments, and my
>experience with cable snarling in other
>industries (whenever we tried to automate
>something, we needed more devices and device
>drivers, and unless they are completely
>wireless, you are bound to have cable snarls)
>has been profusive.
Yes, so what?
Who says Safa Tempo industry is free of problems - technical or otherwise? I think that the WSJ, without talking about "cable snarls" and all that, succeeded in conveying the promises and the challenges of the Safa
Tempo industry in Nepal.
And that's good enough for my purpose.
Again, if that was not good enough for you, then, that's life.
>The last of your points is a good point. Nor
>do I want people to sacrifice everything in
>the name of environment protection. The
>recent trend has been,however, more towards
>benefitting from the image of environment-
>friendliness,be it in industry or in
>politics.
Well, let's get two thing clear:
First, no one cares whether Biswo Poudel or Ashutosh Tiwari want or do
not want "people to sacrifice everything in the name of environment protection."
Don't get carried away with what I perceive to be unwarranted self-importance on your part.
People are FREE to do whatever they legally can. Anytime. Anywhere.
Second, what's wrong with "benefitting from the image of environment-friendliness"? Just
because Biswo Poudel implies that it is somehow wrong doesn't make it look or
sound wrong.
>Even Al Gore touts his records in
>environment protection.
What do you mean "Even Al Gore . . ."?
I don't know how familiar you are with
Gore's record on the environment, but,
again, you make it difficult to take you
seriously as a skeptic if you haven't - before spouting off such a comment -- taken the trouble to read Gore's "earth in the balance" book or if you do not know
about Gore's legislative work, to cite
two examples, on the TN Valley Authority
and the Ozone Hole.
Al Gore can rightly lay claims to have
helped pass a number of environment-friendly legislations. Given that, what's wrong with Gore's citing his provably true contributions to bolster his pro-environment image?
>Don't think that I am dyed-in-the-wool
>skeptic. Want of more information is
>warranted thing, and right thing. No
>intellectual should hope his readers/writers
>to follow his logic without even listening
>them,you know. That's what is the difference
>between karyakarta and evaluators. That's
>why
>I want to raise questions.
No.
Based MOSTLY on the evidence I have seen in this "Wall Streeet Journal" thread
here, I disagree with your assessment of
your own self.
I am beginning to think that you are NOT
"a skeptic . . . who want[s] to raise questions."
But you seem to be someone who:
a) has fixed ideas about how the world works especally on matters of the environment,
b) has a set of true-sounding (i.e. not necessarily valid) and unexamined and unchallenged assumptions,
c)fails to do even basic fact-finding research,
d)passes off your opinions as arguments,
e) reaches sweeping conclusions and,
then,
f) forces your conclusions on others
by asking "I am right, am I not?" type of questions.
I mean, come on!!
Really.
OK, such a strategy may have won you
readers/supporters in the past (and I keep
on seeing such strategies being used by Nepal's intellectuals to make arguments in
public), but, hey, you need to first take
the trouble to learn the basics before you - all on your own -- appoint yourself or call yourself or chest-thump your role as a "skeptic . . . who want[s] to raise questions".
I mean, what good is a seemingly lazy
skeptic who raises all the wrong
questions? You might as well call
yourself a cynic. At least, the cynic,
without the pretence, would be much more
tolerable.
Anyway, these are just my brutally honest opinions with evidence.
Finally, in a spirit of FRIENDLY give-and-take kura-kani, please feel free to disagree with or savagely tear apart every word of what I have just written.
I do not take myself so seriously to say
that my words are always right.
Here's to looking foward to learning more from you.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 01:00 PM
Ashu:
Your reply is ,at best, as uninformed and as
callow as it was my reply, permeated with
puerile obstinacy and biased insinuations.
The crux is that you have not only been
unable to see through my reasonings, but
impudently accused your inability to my
choice of lexicon.
>>I don't expect the Wall Street Journal to cover ALL the problems of Nepal's transport industry
in one report. But if that's what you expect, then, well, that's your expectation, which, again, need
NOT be shared by other people.
Ashu, did I write anywhere I was expecting a
comprehensive analysis on KTM's
transportation? No. What I wrote was ,mainly,:
1.We became testbed of some researchers.
Before endorsing them,we need to be clearer
about their motive.
2. The article is definitely not complete
one.It may be right, it may have nobel cause,
but the glorification (of new tempo) is
evident.Quoting some consumers is in the
same tenor.
What's wrong with that? WSJ is the same
journal that decried Malaysian model of
economy after the 1997 Economic crash. I
supported its opinions.Why the model didn't
crumble and why Malaysia could recover more
quickly than any other? Whenever you read
one article in WSJ, it can be biased,it has
been biased, and until they have the readers
who take them as bible,they will be.
There is nothing wrong to support something
with conditional support and post them in
website for public consumption.
Look, whatever I need to know, I can teach myself by consulting appropriate
resources and experts. And so can hundreds of other smart Nepalis everywhere.
Teaching ourselves stuff we need to know
is the basic skill we all learnt at our universities.
So, don't try to skirt the issue or intimidate others by hinting that we are incapable of discussing
or understanding the basics of electric vehicle ko technical issues just because we are not engineers.
>> That's an unwarranted insult to any reasonably intelligent Nepali.
More to the point, the Wall Street Journal
is NOT an engineering journal. It caters to intelligent, educated laypersons (NOT specialists).
For its readers, I think it did a good job explaining the challenges and promises of Nepal's Safa
tempo industry.
Again, if that's not good enough for you, then, so be it.
OK, if you think it is insult, then I am
sad for that. The sentence larded with
"may be" "probably" doesn't mean to be
insult.Only megalomaniacs think in such a
way.
Ashu, there are so many inventions in the
world, very few people are capable of keeping
up with them. I am not the one,for certainly.
If you think,you can go to the crux of every
thing with your existing acadamic foundation,
I am proud of you.I never doubted your
inteligence,anyway. Don't take everything as
insult, and don't expect to have praises only
everywhere you go.
>> So, don't try to skirt the issue or intimidate others by hinting that we are incapable of discussing
or understanding the basics of electric vehicle ko technical issues just because we are not engineers.
This is your point.For me, if somebody wants
to talk to me in depth about ,for example,the Chinese law,
all I can say is I am not conversant on that.
The question here was not only basics, it
was going to details anyway.I wrote about the
cable snarling and weight problem, and the
environments for automating the
functionality. That is the extent I knew,
more than that,for me, constitues details.
If you think you know more about that, go
ahead.I will love to read them.I didn't want
to intimidate you , and in stead of accusing
me of intimidation, it would have been wiser
had you written your logics, your information
here.
>>Yes, so what?
Who says Safa Tempo industry is free of problems - technical or otherwise? I think that the WSJ,
without talking about "cable snarls" and all that, succeeded in conveying the promises and the
challenges of the Safa
Tempo industry in Nepal.
This was the core of what I was trying to
write. What I meant was , the problem faced
by electrification of vehicles are
1. Overweight
2.Unmanageable cable snarling
(Check the websites of Ford sponsored
researches, and they will tell you this.)
And the article is not writing anything
about that basic thing.You have seen the
tempo, you are satisfied, but I haven't seen
that, and all I am concerned about is whether
the breakthrough was achieved in these
fields.I don't get my point there. What do
you expect me to do in that case?
What is intellect? Question or acquiscence?
>>What do you mean "Even Al Gore . . ."?
I don't mean anything.I was giving an
example of the field where people want
to show off whatever they have done for
environment.
>>.
Based MOSTLY on the evidence I have seen in this "Wall Streeet Journal" thread
here, I disagree with your assessment of
your own self.
I am beginning to think that you are NOT
"a skeptic . . . who want[s] to raise questions."
But you seem to be someone who:
a) has fixed ideas about how the world works especally on matters of the environment,
b) has a set of true-sounding (i.e. not necessarily valid) and unexamined and unchallenged
assumptions,
c)fails to do even basic fact-finding research,
d)passes off your opinions as arguments,
e) reaches sweeping conclusions and,
then,
f) forces your conclusions on others
by asking "I am right, am I not?" type of questions.
I mean, come on!!
Really.
Thanks for your evaluation. How fixed I am
and how flexible you are in your concept can
be seen by reading all our comments in this
website once again. I have conceded to your
valid points, but you are expecting me to
reprise shut-up-and-follow-me role. That's
not what an intellectual does.
I don't claim to have read all sources
for everything. DOn't think that I am a smart
person.I am a mediocre, who deserves to ask
for clarity from the fuzzy,arrogant logics
of every megalomaniacs.My tag questions are
not the enforcement of my arguments, they
are straightforward questions,which
intimidates the so called intellectuals.
Intelligence doesn't come from bragging, or
name dropping. Intelligence comes from asking
and reading in detail. The question is sign
of want of knowledge, and a powerful epistemological tool. Labelling somebody as
cynic may serve to promote your point, but
that is not a condign label for a person who
wants to ask.
You are predicating your evaluation on me
with unexamined, unevaluated and probably
borrowed terminologies. No thing provides
you any reason to justify d) and e) and a).
as for c), I told you earlier that I do
some basic search, and go to detail only when
I feel confident.It is likely that my
cognitive power is a constraint in searching
everything in detail, and in the name of basic fact findings.
>>I do not take myself so seriously to say
that my words are always right.
Nobody should.Especially when you write
something totally unwarranted, and something
you really don't know about,but can't resist
to brag that you can know that by consulting
some researchers or experts.
Ashu, I know that your arguments are
forceful. You are omniscient also, but you
know we all are limited to an extent.
Sometimes, you provide very useful
information, that is why this site attracts
me.I like your arguments, and as you have
pointed out
>>such a strategy may have won you
readers/supporters in the past (and I keep
on seeing such strategies being used by Nepal's intellectuals to make arguments in
public)
I have never been castigated before , and
that was detrimental to the honing of my
skills, your straightforward questions were
really interesting and I appreciate them.
Biswo.
|
| sangita |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 03:42 PM
biswo,
can you write in simpler english so that "silent readers" can also understand your points?
|
| Sangita |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 03:57 PM
Sangita:
I am really sorry for your inconvenience.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 03:58 PM
I am really sorry for your inconvenience.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 04:05 PM
>Ashu:
> Your reply is ,at best, as uninformed and
>as
>callow as it was my reply, permeated with
>puerile obstinacy and biased insinuations.
Biswo, there were no insinuations (i.e. indirect remarks) in my earlier post.
If anything, I was direct and blunt, sledgehammering, as I wrote, my points to you. Wherever I could, I backed up my arguments with evidence. As for your phrases such as "puerile obstinacy", let me remind you that these are just bombastic/pompous adjectives and nouns that really, really
mean NOTHING.
> The crux is that you have not only been
>unable to see through my reasonings, but
>impudently accused your inability to my
>choice of lexicon.
Yes, your reasonings still fail me. I don't
see that failure as a result of my or anyone else's "inability . . . to [your] choice of lexicon' . . . whatever that means.
If you can't express your ideas clearly,
then you should not blame your readers for failing to understand you.
I still think that if you expressed your thoughts in simple, clear, straightforward English, your ideas would carry greater
strength. Sure, big words impress some people. But, let's face it, unless you are George Bernard Shaw, big words do not lead you to clear, sharp thinking.
>1.We became testbed of some researchers.
>Before endorsing them,we need to be clearer
>about their motive.
Well so what if they have some other
motives? What's wrong with that? I don't expect people to lay out their motives in full in advance in Nepal or elsewhere.
I expect Nepali parties to make damn good
contracts that ALSO take into account and push for Nepal's own motives in any blateral
or multilateral experiments.
If we are duped by some foreigners, then, it's our fault, our failure to do appropriate homework. To counter this, rather than naively expecting the world to come clean on its motives, we should raise our standards
to a much more rigorous level so that we are not taken advantage of.
As for Safa Tempo, there's no question about foreign experiments because it's
Nepali entrepreneurs who are risking their money.
>2. The article is definitely not complete
>one.It may be right, it may have nobel cause,
>but the glorification (of new tempo) is
>evident.Quoting some consumers is in the
>same tenor.
Yes, Safa Tempo in Kathmandu is helluva lot
better than smoke-belching Vikram tempos.
If that's glorification of Safa Tempo, then,
so be it.
> What's wrong with that? WSJ is the same
>journal that decried Malaysian model of
>economy after the 1997 Economic crash. I
>supported its opinions.Why the model didn't
>crumble and why Malaysia could recover more
>quickly than any other? Whenever you read
>one article in WSJ, it can be biased,it has
>been biased, and until they have the readers
>who take them as bible,they will be.
How is this Malaysian thing REALLY related to the Safa Tempo? You are just diverting attention with an irrelevant example. This
is what I meant earlier, that you bring in irrelevant examples that may make you seem learned but that actually end up eroding
your credibility because they do not advance your arguments.
Of course, to any thoughtful reader, The Wall Street Journal's leanings on its editorial
pages have long been crystal clear: It supports free markets and argues for minimal government intervention, and it is dominated by conservative (in the American political sense of the word) writers.
[For an antidote to WSJ's editorials, you may wish to read MIT economics professor Paul Krugman's columns in The New York Times]
> There is nothing wrong to support something
>with conditional support and post them in
>website for public consumption.
Well, the whole point of this kurakani is
to point out that NOT all publicly posted views are valid or tenable. Some are good ideas. Soem are bad. As such, this is not an issue of being right or wrong in the absolute sense, but to defend sound conclusions with
evidence while slamming weak ideas so that better thoughts could emerge.
> OK, if you think it is insult, then I am
>sad for that. The sentence larded with
>"may be" "probably" doesn't mean to be
>insult.Only megalomaniacs think in such a
>way.
No.
Megalomaniacs think ONLY about their own self-importance.
I was thinking about YOUR importance earlier by plainly saying that: If you think Safa Tempos have SERIOUS technical hitches that the Wall Street Journal OUGHT to have reported, then explain those glitches to us.
If you think glitches are beyond our comprehension, because, well, we are not
engineers, then:
a) why do you bring them up in the first place? and,
b) after bringing them up, why do you
insult us by saying that we may not understand it because of our non-engineering
backgrounds?
If you can't explain what those glitches
are and convince your readers that they were
important enough to be mentioned in the WSJ report, then you obviously haven't thought thru your ideas. If so, why not admit it, and let it be that?
The reason I am saying this is that you have, by your own admission, held yourself to very high standards of that a "skeptic
. . .who wants to raise questions" for the betterment of the intellect or some noble
goal like that.
Fine.
That' why, as someone who actually supports you, I am forcing you to stick to your high standards while pointing out the inconsistencies in your reasonings.
Having a series of provably untenable
ideas is hardly a recommended path for you
to do anything positive for the intellect!!
> Ashu, there are so many inventions in the
>world, very few people are capable of
>keeping
>up with them. I am not the one,for >certainly.
This is a non-issue. I never said you
should be one all-knowing expert. No one
can be an all-knowing expert.
>If you think,you can go to the crux of
>every
>thing with your existing acadamic foundation,
>I am proud of you.I never doubted your
>inteligence,anyway.
Compliments acknowledged, but the hero of this discussion is not Ashutosh Tiwari.
It's your thoughts about the Safa Tempo. Let's stick to the issue, all right?
>Don't take everything as
>insult, and don't expect to have praises
>only
>everywhere you go.
You are getting way worked up with the word "insult". FYI, I relish/welcome and invite criticisms of my ideas, and my best friends have always been the severest critics of my ideas and thoughts. How else does one learn
if one doesn't get solid non-personal criticisms from those who one respects?
>This is your point.For me, if somebody wants
>to talk to me in depth about ,for example,
>the Chinese law,
>all I can say is I am not conversant on >that.
No one's talking about the Chinese law here. Stop diverting the issue by bringing
untenable analogy.
>The question here was not only basics, it
>was going to details anyway.I wrote about
>the
>cable snarling and weight problem, and the
>environments for automating the
>functionality. That is the extent I knew,
>more than that,for me, constitues details.
I talked to a few EV people here, and they, while starting to lose money on the EV thing, did not think that your concerns about weight
and "cable snarls" are keeping them awake at night.
I mean, if you have seen golf carts
in the US or small vehicles that ply on airport corridors in the West, you'd have
some idea about the basic, functional technology behind Nepal's Safa Tempos.
The WSJ report makes this much clear.
So, your concerns about the weight and "cable snarls" are not big enough to justify scolding WSJ for missing out on that supposedly vital infomation.
Sure, your concerns may strike very real to you, and that's admirable. But in the field here, the imperatives driving Safa tempo people is: How to make the whole thing profitable by attracting passengers who have been lured away by taxis, micro-buses and so on.
>If you think you know more about that, go
>ahead.I will love to read them.I didn't want
>to intimidate you , and in stead of accusing
>me of intimidation, it would have been wiser
>had you written your logics, your
>information
>here.
Rest assured that I remain unintimidated.
I post what I know, and I fully stand
behind my postings while welcoming better ideas. I don't post what I don't know.
My posting philosophy is as simple as that.
>This was the core of what I was trying to
>write. What I meant was , the problem faced
>by electrification of vehicles are
>1. Overweight
>2.Unmanageable cable snarling
>(Check the websites of Ford sponsored
>researches, and they will tell you this.)
Why should I visit Ford ko Web site when
for my purposes, the Safa tempo in Nepal
seem relatively free from the problems of
"cable snarling" and "overweight"?
> And the article is not writing anything
>about that basic thing.You have seen the
>tempo, you are satisfied, but I haven't seen
>that, and all I am concerned about is
>whether
>the breakthrough was achieved in these
>fields.
Well, no one thinks of Safa tempo as technological marvels. They are just
examples of simple, functional and
appropriate technology in use to reduce
vehicular emission in Kathmandu. Nothing
more than that. And that's fine with me.
>>What do you mean "Even Al Gore . . ."?
>
> I don't mean anything.I was giving an
>example of the field where people want
>to show off whatever they have done for
>environment.
What's wrong with "showing off" one's record
about the environment?
To draw an anlogy, you have shown off
your achievments re: Madhu Parka and Java
programming, or also about your successful guessing of a few Nobel Prize winners . . . and I, for one, saw nothing wrong with such showing off on your part.
By the same token, shouldn't Al Gore be allowed to show off his env. records?
As long as one doesn't take credit for
things one did not do, showing off is
fine.
> Thanks for your evaluation. How fixed I
>am
>and how flexible you are in your concept can
>be seen by reading all our comments in this
>website once again. I have conceded to your
>valid points, but you are expecting me to
>reprise shut-up-and-follow-me role. That's
>not what an intellectual does.
Let me make one thing clear: I am NOT an intellectual. If you think I am an intellectual, then, you should be accountable to that thought, and not me.
And so, unlike you, I really don't know what an intellectual does or does not do.
But what I do know is this: NOT all ideas are equally valid for public consumption. The only way to weed out bad ideas is to come up with better ideas. And on and on goes
the process of public debates until we all get nearer to the elusive truth . . . some people are good at handling such debates. Some are not. And that's life.
> I don't claim to have read all sources
>for everything. DOn't think that I am a
>smart
>person.I am a mediocre, who deserves to ask
>for clarity from the fuzzy,arrogant logics
>of every megalomaniacs.
Again, you are using adjectives that serve
no purpose.
>My tag questions are
>not the enforcement of my arguments, they
>are straightforward questions,which
>intimidates the so called intellectuals.
> Intelligence doesn't come from bragging,
>or
>name dropping. Intelligence comes from
>asking
>and reading in detail.
Basically, you are lecturing here, and this is NOT needed. Neither you nor I am capable of telling others what intligence is or
where it comes from.
> I have never been castigated before , and
>that was detrimental to the honing of my
>skills,
Detrimental? My god!! If someone were to
tear apart my arguments with convincing
logic, I would learn so much more!!
>your straightforward questions were
>really interesting and I appreciate them.
Thank you.
oohi
ashu
|
| sparsha |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 04:12 PM
Let's not stop Biswoji from writing the way he writes. In fact, let's encourage him to bring more and more "not simple" words into his writings. I want to see how he writes at his best.
I beleive simple English is good enough to express one's ideas. However, let's not keep someone from proving something-whatever that may be.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 05:23 PM
First to paraphrase all the discussion,
Ashu, it was stemmed from my appreciation
and reservation of one article in WSJ. My
point is that I smells some fishy because
the article was not providing some vital
factor about the electrification of vehicles.
Those valid factors(speed, weight ) are such
a common that generally articles in serious
papers try to address them.Specially when
they are publishing such an article by
showing as if the happening is phenomenon.
This is such a simple argument, and to me sounds such a valid argument(In stead of writing
such reservation, should I be heaping praise
on the article,what do you think?) ,that your
pertinaciousness to acknowledge them is not
more than "a puerlie obstinacy", whether you
acknowledge that or not.Surely, I didn't
expect you to acknowledge that,but with
some good reason ,rather than attack on
my choice of words.Well,may be they mean
nothing to you.(Your subsequent arguments
also shows that!)
When I wrote that Gore and other industries
are prone to show off their environmental
records, was it warranted to retort by saying
that "You also showed off your stories and
Java programming skills"? I mean I don't
think I compared myself to Gore. Such
exaltation doesn' suit me.I am a full time
university student, aging below 25, and
looking for future.Very few resources and
opportunities were accroded to me in my
childhood, and being a mediocre person
myself, I was not able to do anything in par
with those world famous figure. But your
arguments are not only personal, but they go
beyond the topic of (to take your own logic)
safa tempos that you warn me to stick to.
It is very simple: that safa tempos ,due to
the inherent flaws that I mentioned, are
vulnerable and will probably be superseded
by other technological advances. Worse,they
may be just an experiment in our land.
The example of Malaysia was not divergence.
In fact, to show how dispassionate WSJ can
be,I was showing their passionate criticism
of one model that didn't conform to their
prescription. WSJ is the same article that
was publishing the tempo article.There was
correlation, and you probably also understood
where was the pivot.The thing is you were
just trying to push your point by extraneous
thing.
As for Paul Kruggman's article, I used to
read them in Fortune and NYT while I was in
Asia in the aftermath of SEAsian economics
crisis. I was interested on him because he
had correctly predicted the crisis, and was
media darling and conference fixture
everywhere then.
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 11-Oct-00 07:01 PM
Two points were ellided in my previous posting that I think I should include.
One is What I meant to be detrimental to the
honing of my skill was the lack of
castigation, but Ashu seemed to have
understood in another way. I have been
mollycoddled by my friends and classmates
alike all my previous life, and that was
a constraint to my intellectual development.
Another is regarding this one:
>> Sure, your concerns may strike very real to you, and that's admirable. But in the field here, the
imperatives driving Safa tempo people is: How to make the whole thing profitable by attracting
passengers who have been lured away by taxis, micro-buses and so ..
Here you seem to have got my point, but you
are trying to ignore that.Yes, my problem was
about technological glitches. I have plainly
wrote it down,sir. To go more than that, I
don't deem fitting to my acadamic authority.
(How can I write more about the field without
confidence, while insightful critics are here
to catch me everytime I make mistake,isn't
it?)However,if you think that is possible ,
go ahead.Write down about that or such other
technical things and try to overstretch the
limit.
I don't say my comments are plain and clear.
But I don't think that I am pompous in my]
use of words.These words are often used in
Time and other top notch magazines. The
articles by Lance Marrow (which are regularly
published in Time website) also use pithy ,
compact and no-nonsense words.I don't see any
thing wrong in using one seemingly
not-very-proverbial word in stead of banal
one.But I don't criticize those who wants to
write in simpler English.It is not the use
of word that matters, it is the content that
matters.I use the words that I feel
comfortable with.
In stead of getting personal, and listing
attributes about somebody ,we should put
forward some cogent logic.That is what I
believe on. Tag questions are for
intellectuals straightforwardness!! I am so
surprised to find your aversion for them.
Take it easy.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 12-Oct-00 05:09 AM
>Two points were ellided in my previous
>posting that I think I should include.
Biswo,
A silent reader Sangita has already requested you to use simple words. So, it's not only
me who's having trouble understanding you.
Your strategy seems to be: if your readers
don't understand you, then, instead of promising to be clear or reworking/revising your arguments, you blame them for misunderstanding your points.
A case in point is the word: "ellided",
which you have used above.
There is no such word in English called "ellided".
There is "elided", but it's a technical word which means "left out a vowel or syllable in pronunciation."
If you leave out your room keys or your ideas, it's bad English, "Oh, I elided [i.e.
left out] my ideas or my room keys."
That's just BAD diction.
For people who don't know what "elided" means, your choice of that word may sound
impressive. But you can't get past misusing
such words, and then turning aound, saying
that your readers (me and others) have
failed to understand you.
Lance Morrow, your Time Magazine hero, who by the way, teaches at Boston University, would
never use such bad diction.
You use all these big words, when simple
ones will do, thereby leaving people
like me wondering whether you really know
the correct usages of those words. No wonder
then that silent readers like Sangita have hard time understanding you.
>One is What I meant to be detrimental to the
>
honing of my skill was the lack of
>castigation, but Ashu seemed to have
>understood in another way.
Here, again, you are blaming me.
No, I did not misunderstand you.
I know what "honing" means. And I know what "detrimental" means. Now, go back and check what you had written earlier, and then tell me whether I reached wrong conclusions BASED
on your writings.
>I have been
>mollycoddled by my friends and classmates
>alike all my previous life, and that was
>a constraint to my intellectual development.
Well, if you have getting such easy rides from your friends and classmates, then the ride stops here. Forever.
To borrow words from a Don Henley song, this may be "the end of the innocence" for you, and that's life.
As for comments regarding the WSJ article
and the Safa tempo (i.e. the issue of overweight, cable snarls, foreign experments
and others), please refer to my other posting
that appears under a separate heading.
>I don't criticize those who wants to
>write in simpler English.It is not the use
>of word that matters, it is the content that
>matters.I use the words that I feel
>comfortable with.
Fine.
If you are comfortable using the words you feel comfortable with, then why feel uncomfortable with the criticisms that accompany such comfort?
If you can dish it out, why can't you take it too?
>In stead of getting personal, and listing
>attributes about somebody ,we should put
>forward some cogent logic.That is what I
>believe on. Tag questions are for
>intellectuals straightforwardness!! I am so
>surprised to find your aversion for them.
Well, I have been arguing with "cogent logic".
You are so busy bringing up irrlevant examples that you have seem to be not following my logic and evidence.
Logic, by the way, is always "cogent". To talk about "cogent logic" is like saying
"round circle"!! A tautology. Let that be another pointer to you regarding diction.
>Take it easy.
Well, in this forum here,
a) you have called yourself "a mediocre person";
b) you have admitted that "your intellectual growth has been constrained due to easy praises by your classmates."
I mean, that's a lot to take in one day.
That's why, YOU take it easy so that you can bounce back from this episode and, write
and argue even better next time around.
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 12-Oct-00 10:01 AM
1.Elide is not only a technical word. Go back
and check your source. As for double l, it
was a type mistake.
2.I don't want to bounce back.But to go ahead
with your puerile argument is nonsense.
3.Don't imbue yourself with superiority
complex and lecture others to do what they
need to do.Actually,there is nothing like
superiority complex, the worst kind of
inferiority complex is superiority complex.
>>
You use all these big words, when simple
ones will do, thereby leaving people
like me wondering whether you really know
the correct usages of those words.
In this sentence,you are just bragging.
4.I tell you what, I write these comments in
my lab.I am not connected to web in my home
computer for some reasons.Lab is not a place
where I can go back and spell check
everything.My workstation doesn't have spell
check tool,anyway.
I didn't know that you will use uses of
diction as your tool,while talking about
safa tempo.It is better if you still stick
to the safa tempo,as you would like other to
do .
As for knowledge of English language and
use of the English word, just come out of
your narrow world to understand other people.
Writing sentences such as "logic are always
cogent.." may be suited to special use, but
a logic is not necessarily cogent in general
sense.May be you are talking about technical
definition.A logic that you write may not
sound cogent to me..
Some of the nonsense arguments you have put
forward ::
>>
If you think glitches are beyond our comprehension, because, well, we are not
engineers, then:
a) why do you bring them up in the first place? and,
b) after bringing them up, why do you
insult us by saying that we may not understand it because of our non-engineering
backgrounds?
This is not an insult to say that "probably
we don't know more about this technical
aspect because we are not engineers.",
only those who think they know everything are
prone to thinking that way.
>>
Why should I visit Ford ko Web site when
for my purposes, the Safa tempo in Nepal
seem relatively free from the problems of
"cable snarling" and "overweight"?
Why should you visit? To do what you say
"basic fact findings" for which you think I
am reluctant.
>>But you seem to be someone who:
a) has fixed ideas about how the world works especally on matters of the environment,
b) has a set of true-sounding (i.e. not necessarily valid) and unexamined and unchallenged
assumptions,
c)fails to do even basic fact-finding research,
d)passes off your opinions as arguments,
e) reaches sweeping conclusions and,
then,
f) forces your conclusions on others
by asking "I am right, am I not?" type of questions.
I mean, come on!!
Really.
These kinds of presonal labelling may sound
good debate to you,but in stead of "you seem
to be .." ,you could have written "your this
logic sounds.." , which could have conveyed
your message, and not provided holistic
branding of the person you are talking about.
Branding somebody is not a civil way.
Again, it is useless to go further in this
debate.It has been mostly imbued with your
grandiloquence and insistence.I don't want
to backtrack, but want to leave this here.
You can write your reply, and I welcome that.
A slight display of pudency, and
acknowledgement can't harm you. I
am sure there are other topics where we can
debate in a better and civil way,if you agree.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 12-Oct-00 11:33 AM
Biswo,
I have made my points quite clear.
Even if you do not understand them,
I am confident that thoughtful
readers will see to that.
It's obvious that you, by your own
admission, haven't had the benefit of
criticisms that question the BASIS of
your beliefs.
Thank you for making that abundantly
clear for all to see.
oohi
ashu
|
