[ILUG-BOM] [Fwd: FYJC admission only through IE (Democracy on question mark?)]
krmane at gmail.com
Sun Jun 28 00:33:31 IST 2009
On Sun, 2009-06-28 at 00:22 +0530, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह)
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:09 AM, Prashant Verma<pverma at gmail.com> wrote:
> > At 11:54 PM 6/27/2009, àª¦àª¿àª¨à«‡àª¶ àª¶àª¾àª¹/à¤¦à¤¿à¤¨à¥‡à¤¶ wrote:
> >>That way you are diluting the meaning of word terrorist - who KILLS
> >>INNOCENT PEOPLE without any reason or remorse.
> >>Let us be responsible in choosing our words. (remember, you objecting
> >>to people calling crackers as hackers?)
> > Nice try Dinesh. But whether you will get through
> > at all to KK is doubtful. In my last interaction
> > with him, he strongly reminded me of Humpty
> > Dumpty (a character in "Through the Looking Glass").
> I never intend to get through to KK. :-) He is RMS++ ;-)
Thanks Dinesh. But I am not even .01% as great and revolutionary as
RMS. If that was a complement then really I don't deserve it. And if
that was a tonting statement it also means that RMS is stupid kk ==.
And there will be people to talk about this but that's for a later time.
I know there are people who talk all kind of crap behind the back of RMS
who actually has laid the roots for this huge revolution.
> It was directed to people on the list (there are others you know?).
> And that's why I have used "we" instead of "you". ;-)
Very good. I think every one should follow Prashant's advice of
"ignoring me ". but alas, those same people actually respond. And
While I am no where near RMS, I would at least make an attempt to carry
his message as little as I can. Unfortunately my words carry some
waitage thanks to the mentoring I got from the right people at the right
> > Excerpted from here: http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm :
> > <start excerpt>
> > `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
*glory* for what? I never had it and don't want it like politicians.
> > `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in
> > rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I
> > choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'
again *I* think again.
There are enough evidance of people supporting my arguements.
> > <end excerpt>
> :-D Nice and apt.
good attempt, except that the basic asumtion *i* was wrong.
More information about the Linuxers