Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" <ben.hassine@x> wrote: > Reality is Love. Meaning no disrespect but...prove it! Prove that Reality is Love or any other label. Could it be that Love or Reality is everything there is including: machine-guns, rape, torture, brutality, ignorance, poverty, suicide, etc.? And: beauty, hope, love, peace, affection, tenderness, kindness, charity, joy, humor, laughter, excitement, etc.? When Reality or Love is realised as your true nature, your > being, you see the world as Reality, as Love. Is that your own personal experience or something you read about? The world of separation is > seen as a dream. Actions will spontaneously arise from that undivided > Reality, which again is Love. > There will be no more division, all is seen as One. > In this case all action will have the stamp of Love imprinted on it. > > Love doesn't need machineguns. Why do you suppose Reality/Love has provided/created machine-guns at all? If Totality or Unicity is, machine-guns must be part of it's purpose and design - but for what purpose does Reality need machine- guns, etc.? Could it be that Love provides machine-guns to help its self (there is only Love) find its self again through serious misery and pain? Are machine-guns a very effective way for Love to stop itself from wandering too far away and forcing itself to come on back home to itself - which is Love? Is it possible that everything in Love's entire universe - bad/good, right/wrong, is placed here/there to aid Love in its return home after a good outing? It is the illusion of separation that needs > them. > > Yours, > > Ben. > > > > > > - > "Nasrudin" <nasrudin3> > <RamanaMaharshi> > Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:55 AM > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Ben's solution > > > > I see no flaw of logic in Jim's arguments. Perhaps, > > though, there is one of imprudence. > > A great sage was asked by his disciple, why -since he > > was beyond karma and it no longer mattered whether his > > actions were 'good' or 'evil': > > "Why do you choose the path of 'good' action, when it > > no longer matters?" > > The sage replied: "Because it doesn't matter". > > > > At the stage where the necessity sometimes to choose > > the right but unpleasing over the wrong but pleasing > > has ceased,something in the nature of humanity will > > always gravitate to the simple trusted pattern of > > 'appropriate' behaviour after it is no longer > > necessary. > > Ramana gave an example in reply to a question; since > > the world is imaginary and not our responsibility, > > what reason is there to behave in other than a callous > > manner to its immediate needs around us? > > If in a dream, all except we are starving and we have > > bread, why not machine-gun them? > > No reason at all, provided one really can live with > > the imaginary guilt, imaginary prison term, etc. In > > other words, we should exert effort to pretending the > > world is real, and acting as if it were. A dream is > > only a dream; but who enjoys nightmares? > > > > Nasrudin > > > > --- jim37rich <jim37rich> wrote: > > > > Ben: > > > > Here's the solution to your problems. > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" > > <ben.hassine@x> > > wrote: > > > Dear Jim, > > > > > > So if you know this, why come and argue here? > > > > Who is asking this question? > > > > > > > You are not interested in what people here kindly > > point out. You go > > around > > > in all these lists merely to argue. > > > > Who is saying "You are not interested" and "You go > > around....."? > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't like the way you approach Alan. > > > > Who doesn't like? Who cares? > > > > > > Using Ramana's formula for self-realizaiton the answer > > would be: > > Me, I, Gabriele! I care! > > Then you ask yourself: Who is this me, this Gabriele > > that cares? Am > > I really Gabriele? Am I really this person, this me? > > Am I this > > individual/body/mind/personality, ego, thing, entity, > > object - known > > as Gabriele? > > > > If yes, abide as a person. > > > > If no, abide as that which is not a > > person/body/mind/etc. > > > > (From another post): > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, > > happens after the > > final question: Who am I? > > > > Ramesh S. Balsekar: For whom? That is the whole > > point, Gary. The > > question - Who is Gary? The answer - There is no > > Gary! > > > > Ramesh: Gary, the ego, doesn't exist. If Gary doesn't > > exist then > > what exists? Only the Source. Source is all there is. > > > > > > Ask yourself who cares; Who is doing, thinking, > > feeling, reacting, > > complaining, questioning, etc. as often as you can and > > a time may > > come when you suddenly know that you are not a > > person/body/mind/ego > > and never was, and that the person, etc. that you took > > yourself for > > does not now or ever did exist - except as an > > image/concept in your > > own mind. When you stop believing in the personal > > object you have > > believed yourself to be since very early childhood, it > > will vanish > > and that which you are will remain. Things will be > > much better for > > you after that blessed remembrance. > > > > > > > > > > good luck, > > > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: > > RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: > > RamanaMaharshi > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > http://greetings..au - Greetings > > Send your love online with Greetings - FREE! > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > Un: RamanaMaharshi > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Links > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > Your > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Dear Jim, It is something I red. I have no idea what I am talking about. I am sorry. Love, Ben. - "jim37rich" <jim37rich <RamanaMaharshi> Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:06 PM [RamanaMaharshi] Reality is Love > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" <ben.hassine@x> > wrote: > > Reality is Love. > > Meaning no disrespect but...prove it! Prove that Reality is Love or > any other label. > Could it be that Love or Reality is everything there is including: > machine-guns, rape, torture, brutality, ignorance, poverty, suicide, > etc.? And: beauty, hope, love, peace, affection, tenderness, > kindness, charity, joy, humor, laughter, excitement, etc.? > > > When Reality or Love is realised as your true nature, your > > being, you see the world as Reality, as Love. > > Is that your own personal experience or something you read about? > > > The world of separation is > > seen as a dream. Actions will spontaneously arise from that > undivided > > Reality, which again is Love. > > There will be no more division, all is seen as One. > > In this case all action will have the stamp of Love imprinted on it. > > > > Love doesn't need machineguns. > > Why do you suppose Reality/Love has provided/created machine-guns at > all? If Totality or Unicity is, machine-guns must be part of it's > purpose and design - but for what purpose does Reality need machine- > guns, etc.? > > Could it be that Love provides machine-guns to help its self (there > is only Love) find its self again through serious misery and pain? > Are machine-guns a very effective way for Love to stop itself from > wandering too far away and forcing itself to come on back home to > itself - which is Love? Is it possible that everything in Love's > entire universe - bad/good, right/wrong, is placed here/there to aid > Love in its return home after a good outing? > > > It is the illusion of separation that needs > > them. > > > > Yours, > > > > Ben. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > "Nasrudin" <nasrudin3> > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:55 AM > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Ben's solution > > > > > > > I see no flaw of logic in Jim's arguments. Perhaps, > > > though, there is one of imprudence. > > > A great sage was asked by his disciple, why -since he > > > was beyond karma and it no longer mattered whether his > > > actions were 'good' or 'evil': > > > "Why do you choose the path of 'good' action, when it > > > no longer matters?" > > > The sage replied: "Because it doesn't matter". > > > > > > At the stage where the necessity sometimes to choose > > > the right but unpleasing over the wrong but pleasing > > > has ceased,something in the nature of humanity will > > > always gravitate to the simple trusted pattern of > > > 'appropriate' behaviour after it is no longer > > > necessary. > > > Ramana gave an example in reply to a question; since > > > the world is imaginary and not our responsibility, > > > what reason is there to behave in other than a callous > > > manner to its immediate needs around us? > > > If in a dream, all except we are starving and we have > > > bread, why not machine-gun them? > > > No reason at all, provided one really can live with > > > the imaginary guilt, imaginary prison term, etc. In > > > other words, we should exert effort to pretending the > > > world is real, and acting as if it were. A dream is > > > only a dream; but who enjoys nightmares? > > > > > > Nasrudin > > > > > > --- jim37rich <jim37rich> wrote: > > > > > > Ben: > > > > > > Here's the solution to your problems. > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" > > > <ben.hassine@x> > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Jim, > > > > > > > > So if you know this, why come and argue here? > > > > > > Who is asking this question? > > > > > > > > > > You are not interested in what people here kindly > > > point out. You go > > > around > > > > in all these lists merely to argue. > > > > > > Who is saying "You are not interested" and "You go > > > around....."? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't like the way you approach Alan. > > > > > > Who doesn't like? Who cares? > > > > > > > > > Using Ramana's formula for self-realizaiton the answer > > > would be: > > > Me, I, Gabriele! I care! > > > Then you ask yourself: Who is this me, this Gabriele > > > that cares? Am > > > I really Gabriele? Am I really this person, this me? > > > Am I this > > > individual/body/mind/personality, ego, thing, entity, > > > object - known > > > as Gabriele? > > > > > > If yes, abide as a person. > > > > > > If no, abide as that which is not a > > > person/body/mind/etc. > > > > > > (From another post): > > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, > > > happens after the > > > final question: Who am I? > > > > > > Ramesh S. Balsekar: For whom? That is the whole > > > point, Gary. The > > > question - Who is Gary? The answer - There is no > > > Gary! > > > > > > Ramesh: Gary, the ego, doesn't exist. If Gary doesn't > > > exist then > > > what exists? Only the Source. Source is all there is. > > > > > > > > > Ask yourself who cares; Who is doing, thinking, > > > feeling, reacting, > > > complaining, questioning, etc. as often as you can and > > > a time may > > > come when you suddenly know that you are not a > > > person/body/mind/ego > > > and never was, and that the person, etc. that you took > > > yourself for > > > does not now or ever did exist - except as an > > > image/concept in your > > > own mind. When you stop believing in the personal > > > object you have > > > believed yourself to be since very early childhood, it > > > will vanish > > > and that which you are will remain. Things will be > > > much better for > > > you after that blessed remembrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good luck, > > > > > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > > Subscribe: > > > RamanaMaharshi- > > > Un: > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > http://greetings..au - Greetings > > > Send your love online with Greetings - FREE! > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > > > Un: RamanaMaharshi > > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > Your > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > Subscribe: RamanaMaharshi- > Un: RamanaMaharshi > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > Links > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > RamanaMaharshi > > Your > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 --- jim37rich <jim37rich wrote: > --- In RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" <ben.hassine@x> > wrote: > > Reality is Love. > > Meaning no disrespect but...prove it! Prove that Reality is Love or > any other label. > Could it be that Love or Reality is everything there is including: > machine-guns, rape, torture, brutality, ignorance, poverty, suicide, > etc.? And: beauty, hope, love, peace, affection, tenderness, > kindness, charity, joy, humor, laughter, excitement, etc.? > > > When Reality or Love is realised as your true nature, your > > being, you see the world as Reality, as Love. > > Is that your own personal experience or something you read about? > > > The world of separation is > > seen as a dream. Actions will spontaneously arise from that > undivided > > Reality, which again is Love. > > There will be no more division, all is seen as One. > > In this case all action will have the stamp of Love imprinted on it. > > > > Love doesn't need machineguns. > > Why do you suppose Reality/Love has provided/created machine-guns at > all? If Totality or Unicity is, machine-guns must be part of it's > purpose and design - but for what purpose does Reality need machine- > guns, etc.? > > Could it be that Love provides machine-guns to help its self (there > is only Love) find its self again through serious misery and pain? > Are machine-guns a very effective way for Love to stop itself from > wandering too far away and forcing itself to come on back home to > itself - which is Love? Is it possible that everything in Love's > entire universe - bad/good, right/wrong, is placed here/there to aid > Love in its return home after a good outing? > > > It is the illusion of separation that needs > > them. > > > > Yours, > > > > Ben. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > "Nasrudin" <nasrudin3> > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:55 AM > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Ben's solution > > > > > > > I see no flaw of logic in Jim's arguments. Perhaps, > > > though, there is one of imprudence. > > > A great sage was asked by his disciple, why -since he > > > was beyond karma and it no longer mattered whether his > > > actions were 'good' or 'evil': > > > "Why do you choose the path of 'good' action, when it > > > no longer matters?" > > > The sage replied: "Because it doesn't matter". > > > > > > At the stage where the necessity sometimes to choose > > > the right but unpleasing over the wrong but pleasing > > > has ceased,something in the nature of humanity will > > > always gravitate to the simple trusted pattern of > > > 'appropriate' behaviour after it is no longer > > > necessary. > > > Ramana gave an example in reply to a question; since > > > the world is imaginary and not our responsibility, > > > what reason is there to behave in other than a callous > > > manner to its immediate needs around us? > > > If in a dream, all except we are starving and we have > > > bread, why not machine-gun them? > > > No reason at all, provided one really can live with > > > the imaginary guilt, imaginary prison term, etc. In > > > other words, we should exert effort to pretending the > > > world is real, and acting as if it were. A dream is > > > only a dream; but who enjoys nightmares? > > > > > > Nasrudin > > > > > > --- jim37rich <jim37rich> wrote: > > > > > > Ben: > > > > > > Here's the solution to your problems. > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" > > > <ben.hassine@x> > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Jim, > > > > > > > > So if you know this, why come and argue here? > > > > > > Who is asking this question? > > > > > > > > > > You are not interested in what people here kindly > > > point out. You go > > > around > > > > in all these lists merely to argue. > > > > > > Who is saying "You are not interested" and "You go > > > around....."? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't like the way you approach Alan. > > > > > > Who doesn't like? Who cares? > > > > > > > > > Using Ramana's formula for self-realizaiton the answer > > > would be: > > > Me, I, Gabriele! I care! > > > Then you ask yourself: Who is this me, this Gabriele > > > that cares? Am > > > I really Gabriele? Am I really this person, this me? > > > Am I this > > > individual/body/mind/personality, ego, thing, entity, > > > object - known > > > as Gabriele? > > > > > > If yes, abide as a person. > > > > > > If no, abide as that which is not a > > > person/body/mind/etc. > > > > > > (From another post): > > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, > > > happens after the > > > final question: Who am I? > > > > > > Ramesh S. Balsekar: For whom? That is the whole > > > point, Gary. The > > > question - Who is Gary? The answer - There is no > > > Gary! > > > > > > Ramesh: Gary, the ego, doesn't exist. If Gary doesn't > > > exist then > > > what exists? Only the Source. Source is all there is. > > > > > > > > > Ask yourself who cares; Who is doing, thinking, > > > feeling, reacting, > > > complaining, questioning, etc. as often as you can and > > > a time may > > > come when you suddenly know that you are not a > > > person/body/mind/ego > > > and never was, and that the person, etc. that you took > > > yourself for > > > does not now or ever did exist - except as an > > > image/concept in your > > > own mind. When you stop believing in the personal > > > object you have > > > believed yourself to be since very early childhood, it > > > will vanish > > > and that which you are will remain. Things will be > > > much better for > > > you after that blessed remembrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good luck, > > > > > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > > Subscribe: > > > RamanaMaharshi- > > > Un: > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > > === message truncated === ______________________ BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2004 Report Share Posted January 31, 2004 Apologies I am not entering this discussion -an E mail was sent accidently while transfering files .. --- Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs wrote: > --- jim37rich <jim37rich wrote: > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben > Hassine" > <ben.hassine@x> > > wrote: > > > Reality is Love. > ______________________ BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Namaste Alan and all In a message like this due to the number of contributors, it becomes difficult to figure who is responding to which section of whose post. I am a bit confused as the embedded sentences do not make sense. Any thoughts on formatting replies for a lay reader to follow the thread easily? ( My suggestion- while replying keep only those sections of original message to which replies pertain; if there are more than two people- draw lines to demarcate current reply) Many Pranams Sridhar RamanaMaharshi, Alan Jacobs <alanadamsjacobs> wrote: > --- jim37rich <jim37rich> wrote: > --- In RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" > <ben.hassine@x> > > wrote: > > > Reality is Love. > > > > Meaning no disrespect but...prove it! Prove that Reality is Love or > > any other label. > > Could it be that Love or Reality is everything there is including: > > machine-guns, rape, torture, brutality, ignorance, poverty, suicide, > > etc.? And: beauty, hope, love, peace, affection, tenderness, > > kindness, charity, joy, humor, laughter, excitement, etc.? > > > > > > When Reality or Love is realised as your true nature, your > > > being, you see the world as Reality, as Love. > > > > Is that your own personal experience or something you read about? > > > > > > The world of separation is > > > seen as a dream. Actions will spontaneously arise from that > > undivided > > > Reality, which again is Love. > > > There will be no more division, all is seen as One. > > > In this case all action will have the stamp of Love imprinted on it. > > > > > > Love doesn't need machineguns. > > > > Why do you suppose Reality/Love has provided/created machine-guns at > > all? If Totality or Unicity is, machine-guns must be part of it's > > purpose and design - but for what purpose does Reality need machine- > > guns, etc.? > > > > Could it be that Love provides machine-guns to help its self (there > > is only Love) find its self again through serious misery and pain? > > Are machine-guns a very effective way for Love to stop itself from > > wandering too far away and forcing itself to come on back home to > > itself - which is Love? Is it possible that everything in Love's > > entire universe - bad/good, right/wrong, is placed here/there to aid > > Love in its return home after a good outing? > > > > > > It is the illusion of separation that needs > > > them. > > > > > > Yours, > > > > > > Ben. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > "Nasrudin" <nasrudin3> > > > <RamanaMaharshi> > > > Saturday, January 31, 2004 8:55 AM > > > Re: [RamanaMaharshi] Ben's solution > > > > > > > > > > I see no flaw of logic in Jim's arguments. Perhaps, > > > > though, there is one of imprudence. > > > > A great sage was asked by his disciple, why -since he > > > > was beyond karma and it no longer mattered whether his > > > > actions were 'good' or 'evil': > > > > "Why do you choose the path of 'good' action, when it > > > > no longer matters?" > > > > The sage replied: "Because it doesn't matter". > > > > > > > > At the stage where the necessity sometimes to choose > > > > the right but unpleasing over the wrong but pleasing > > > > has ceased,something in the nature of humanity will > > > > always gravitate to the simple trusted pattern of > > > > 'appropriate' behaviour after it is no longer > > > > necessary. > > > > Ramana gave an example in reply to a question; since > > > > the world is imaginary and not our responsibility, > > > > what reason is there to behave in other than a callous > > > > manner to its immediate needs around us? > > > > If in a dream, all except we are starving and we have > > > > bread, why not machine-gun them? > > > > No reason at all, provided one really can live with > > > > the imaginary guilt, imaginary prison term, etc. In > > > > other words, we should exert effort to pretending the > > > > world is real, and acting as if it were. A dream is > > > > only a dream; but who enjoys nightmares? > > > > > > > > Nasrudin > > > > > > > > --- jim37rich <jim37rich> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ben: > > > > > > > > Here's the solution to your problems. > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi, "Ben Hassine" > > > > <ben.hassine@x> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Dear Jim, > > > > > > > > > > So if you know this, why come and argue here? > > > > > > > > Who is asking this question? > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not interested in what people here kindly > > > > point out. You go > > > > around > > > > > in all these lists merely to argue. > > > > > > > > Who is saying "You are not interested" and "You go > > > > around....."? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I don't like the way you approach Alan. > > > > > > > > Who doesn't like? Who cares? > > > > > > > > > > > > Using Ramana's formula for self-realizaiton the answer > > > > would be: > > > > Me, I, Gabriele! I care! > > > > Then you ask yourself: Who is this me, this Gabriele > > > > that cares? Am > > > > I really Gabriele? Am I really this person, this me? > > > > Am I this > > > > individual/body/mind/personality, ego, thing, entity, > > > > object - known > > > > as Gabriele? > > > > > > > > If yes, abide as a person. > > > > > > > > If no, abide as that which is not a > > > > person/body/mind/etc. > > > > > > > > (From another post): > > > > What, in your own personal or otherwise experience, > > > > happens after the > > > > final question: Who am I? > > > > > > > > Ramesh S. Balsekar: For whom? That is the whole > > > > point, Gary. The > > > > question - Who is Gary? The answer - There is no > > > > Gary! > > > > > > > > Ramesh: Gary, the ego, doesn't exist. If Gary doesn't > > > > exist then > > > > what exists? Only the Source. Source is all there is. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ask yourself who cares; Who is doing, thinking, > > > > feeling, reacting, > > > > complaining, questioning, etc. as often as you can and > > > > a time may > > > > come when you suddenly know that you are not a > > > > person/body/mind/ego > > > > and never was, and that the person, etc. that you took > > > > yourself for > > > > does not now or ever did exist - except as an > > > > image/concept in your > > > > own mind. When you stop believing in the personal > > > > object you have > > > > believed yourself to be since very early childhood, it > > > > will vanish > > > > and that which you are will remain. Things will be > > > > much better for > > > > you after that blessed remembrance. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > good luck, > > > > > > > > jim > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post message: RamanaMaharshi > > > > Subscribe: > > > > RamanaMaharshi- > > > > Un: > > > > RamanaMaharshi > > > > List owner: RamanaMaharshi-owner > > > > > > > > Shortcut URL to this page: > > > > http://www./community/RamanaMaharshi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Links > > > > > > > > > > > > RamanaMaharshi/ > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === > > ____________________ __ > BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2004 Report Share Posted February 1, 2004 Dear Sri Sridhar, This sounds like avery good idea .Thanks .Best wishes , Alan --- asridhar19 <asridhar19 wrote: > Namaste Alan and all > In a message like this due to the number of contributors, it becomes > difficult to figure who is responding to which section of whose post. > I am a bit confused as the embedded sentences do not make sense. > Any thoughts on formatting replies for a lay reader to follow the > thread easily? ( My suggestion- while replying keep only those > sections of original message to which replies pertain; if there are > more than two people- draw lines to demarcate current reply) > > Many Pranams > Sridhar > ______________________ BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80 http://bt..co.uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.