DOR,
No you're not.
Ofcourse not. But, neutrality matters.
The thing is, you quote 1 or 2 lines that are convenient to you and not the rest of the article. You cannot just say "Oh, he, bleh bleh, he has no credibility" and stop. If you engage me, you have to explain. If you don't have time, make time. Once you get into the argument, you should continue until we both are satisfied. If I'm not satisfied, i'll engage/ask you again. I explain my stance, you should too, if you want me to take your arguments seriously.
Why are you playing the victim card again and again like a kid? I respect everybody's profession, including yours. If you feel bad about it, that was not my intention. But in any argument do not bring in 30 years of this and that. Let your post decide that. I live in the present and I have worked for 16 years now, but you would not see me pressing my qualifications into any argument. I have an open mind, do you? Or I can put you in my ignore list.
And just so that you know, spending time in the Garo hills is very tough. If not the terrorists, the leeches suck the blood out of a person. I would not discount the author's view.
Originally posted by DOR
View Post
Originally posted by DOR
View Post
Originally posted by DOR
View Post
Originally posted by DOR
View Post
And just so that you know, spending time in the Garo hills is very tough. If not the terrorists, the leeches suck the blood out of a person. I would not discount the author's view.
Comment