let's be constructive

[Guest guest]

>

> My interest was to know if there was any solid alternative proposed.

 

But then after being refused to have your "interest" satisfied,

you quickly showed your interest in psychoanalyses and patronizing

comments of what not answering to you is to be understood to mean.

 

>

> or is it that after experiencing rtviks' duplicity and tricky questions

> some of us have wrongly taken it for granted that any question made

> against our will must be tricky or duplicitous?

 

Or is it that some of us have wrongly taken it for granted that

it can't possibly ever happen, especially when our own good self

is under such suspicion?

 

 

> I don't think I am expert enough to judge why many things have gone wrong

> and if the GBC alone is to blame for it, especially when I have not been

> on GBC body and haven't faced the challenges myself.

>

> Instead I liked Svarup pr's approach on the issue, that if the GBCs have

> not been able to do their job properly that is because they were/are over

> burdened with may other responsibilities and so they should be relieved

> from some responsibilities.

 

 

OK, I can understand that you don't like nor do you support those

approaches that ask for resignation and replacement. That's quite

obvious to everybody, I believe, since that's what you are arguing

here over. I just happened not to like the way you were trying to

win your argument over; ask a provocative question and then when

she get's upset sensing a humiliation behind, then immediately

proclaim to everybody how mataji goes paranoid, got no quality

answer to offer, got compared with condemned ritviks, exposed

as foolish proposer of replacement but who, just see, can't even

give even one name, and then eliminate her away with "mataji let's

not get in arguments".

 

 

- mnd