| Username |
Post |
| namita kiran-thuene |
Posted
on 16-Mar-01 06:28 AM
Dear Ashu,
How could you be so wrong with a mind like yours? When you chose to post something in the public domain, it is public’s property. Unless stated otherwise. When you are such a powerful presence (whether one likes it or not)in this site, even you yourself could be considered a public property. I have to ask a lawyer about the specifics. So, You cannot say oh-it-was-addressed-to-me-only kind of reasoning to silence your critic. When Curious George and you have decided to bring questions and answers in GBNC home page (thanks to SAN), then it is for the public eye. There is no condition who can answer whom and in which condition. It would have been entirely different thing if let’s say Biswo had snooped into your computer. I guess there is a law against it.
By the way what do you mean by “in fact, you must have noticed….. recently ‘kumari Revistied.’” Does that mean since nobody commented on that particular subject, therefore, nobody could comment on your and C. George’s exchange? Where is the relevance?
You are trying to set a dangerous precedence with your insistence upon this-is-my- business type of logic. The topic of the page says “Discussion.” Yet we post poetry, our bio data, albeit veiled, and so on. So by being in the Discussion group one has to be ready to field off any question, enquiry, even the sinistrous ones. People jump in, jump out, and stays on. We may not like it but we can not dictate it.
Your friend Namita.
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Mar-01 12:56 PM
>Dear Ashu,
>
>When you chose to post something in
>the public domain, it is public’s property.
Agreed.
>Unless stated otherwise. When you are such
>a powerful presence (whether one likes it or
>not)in this site, even you yourself could be
>considered a public property.
Namita, you know me well enough as a person.
As Hom Raj pointed out, our online persona
could well be very different from our
real-life persona.
I like to have a good debate/discussion. If thre's
none available, I like to to stimulate a few.
That's all.
And so, for someone like me being "considered a
public property" shows that there is a serious
lack of better, sharper thinkers among us :-)
>So, You
>cannot say oh-it-was-addressed-to-me-only
>kind of reasoning to silence your critic.
The issue is NOT of silencing, but of
clarification.
Let us not confuse one with the other.
>When Curious George and you have decided to
>bring questions and answers in GBNC home
>page (thanks to SAN), then it is for the
>public eye.
Agreed.
> There is no condition who can
>answer whom and in which condition.
Agreed.
> It
>would have been entirely different thing if
>let’s say Biswo had snooped into your
>computer. I guess there is a law against it.
I fail to see your reasoning here, but, let's go
on.
I WELCOMED Shailesh's questions, and I answered
them to the best of my ability.
What's this thing about silencing critics?
>By the way what do you mean by “in fact, you
>must have noticed….. recently ‘kumari
>Revistied.’” Does that mean since nobody
>commented on that particular subject,
>therefore, nobody could comment on your and
>C. George’s exchange?
No.
>Where is the
>relevance?
Namita, on this thread, you have asked me -- Ashutosh
Tiwari -- specific questions. I am answering you.
Since your questions are in the public domain, others
can also answer them, of course. But since you've
addressed them to me specifically, others are less
likely to answer your questions.
This is a distincton I want you to keep in mind.
That exchange between Shailesh and me was, I thought,
a lively entertaining exchange. Not once did I
ask Shailesh NOT to ask me questions nor did I
attempt to silence him.
What I objected was some other people's telling us
how to do an exchange. My attitude was: If you didn't
like the exchange, then just don't read them. If not,
then enjoy it as spectator sport -- nothing more.
That was all. There
was no question about 'silencing' anybody!
>You are trying to set a dangerous precedence
>with your insistence upon this-is-my-
>business type of logic. The topic of the
>page says “Discussion.” Yet we post poetry,
>our bio data, albeit veiled, and so on.
Namita, again, I've done my bit to promote
discussions here. So the issue of my trying
to set "a dangerous precedence" does not
arise.
I often have strong opinons and I am aware
that the way I express those opinions is
a little too hard for some to handle at times.
And that's life.
BUT never would I say that "I am always right"
or "do this or do that".
Let us not confuse expression of strong
opinions with dictating anybody.
> So
>by being in the Discussion group one has to
>be ready to field off any question, enquiry,
>even the sinistrous ones. People jump in,
>jump out, and stays on. We may not like it
>but we can not dictate it.
No one's dictating anyone here.
>Your friend Namita.
Thanks for being a friend. How's the baby?
oohi
ashu
|
| namita kiran-thuene |
Posted
on 18-Mar-01 03:51 PM
just one clarification: when i said "...silencing your critic.." i meant Biswo, not C.George.
the baby is doing fine.... she just had a fall today from her crib! but, she is ok. why don't you give me your email address? i would rather not talk personal stuff here. people might object!!! :)
namita
|
| ashu |
Posted
on 18-Mar-01 08:04 PM
>just one clarification: when i said "...
>silencing your critic.." i meant Biswo, not
>C.George.
Namita, thanks for this clarification.
But Biswo appears to be a pretty strong-willed
and irrepresible guy, who needs neither me or
anyone else to "silence" him. So, we need
not worry about his being silent, and that's
good.
>the baby is doing fine.... she just had a
>fall today from her crib! but, she is ok.
Good to hear that.
>why don't you give me your email address? i
>would rather not talk personal stuff here.
>people might object!!! :)
Agreed.
My address is: ashutosh@post.harvard.edu
oohi
ashu
|
| Biswo |
Posted
on 19-Mar-01 02:55 AM
Dear Ashu:
Just to nitpick again.
If you think I was jumping between you and Shailesh(oorf C George
oorf G Narayan) in that particular case, I accept your charge.
Again, sorry for that.
But please go back to the thread titled
'Best School = freedom of thought'(around September last year)
You have jumped between hari and I.Any explanation for this
inconsistency,sir?
I believe such improvised rules will only blur the protocol we
are using while writing here.Or the only protocol will be 'maile
gareko sabai thik, aru le gareko bethik..'
Biswo
|
