[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (think twice before pushing a button)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (think twice before pushing a button)
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:09:23 -0500
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
-
References: <4bdstk$j39@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dpf93$mpd@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e15jv$lj9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
Would it not be nice, if we wait and reflect instead shooting off
a reply even without reading the import of a post.
G.Sree Ramana Gopal
===============================================================
In article <4e15jv$lj9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>: (5) Even Ajay shah has implied some problems with the
>: present charter (i dont know if i am reading between lines,
>: but his inability to stop, for example anti-saibaba flame
>: without any rationale, is understood to be due to deficiency
>: of charter as it exists). (Chandra Shekhar Kambhapathi also
>: expressed the need for reorg, which for some unknown reasons
>: i interpreted as need to modify charter!). I do not know if
>: i can interpret Dhruba C and Ken S posts too as supportive of
> ************************* *************************
>: this. More over, once a talk group, as in (3) above, is
>: created, he need *not* feel apologetic about *supressing*
>: certain view points, since there is going to be another forum
>: for those voices that do not satisfy higher standards of srh.
>: ("supressing" etc are *not* ajay shah's words).
>
>1. Do not read to much into somethings. I do not
>recollect Dhruba actually supporting re-org. in some
>specific sense.
did I say Dhruba C supported re-org?
you know that the above para(5) is only about the charter.
Dhruba C expressed a feeling that the srh needs to be *improved* and
asked us to concentrate on giving suggestions for the same, and i
only wondered if i can interpret this as being supportive of charter
modification (not as supportive of reorg). In fact i was so conservative
in my import that even though Chandrashekhar K explicitly supported
reorg, i only interpreted it as a support for charter modification.
*Note* that i did start the sentence with "i do *not* know if
i can interpret Dhruba C ...".
