No subject
Sun Sep 28 22:52:05 IST 2008
few of those who are techniclaly or ideologically or both ways attracted to
Free Software. I want to see this as a Mass Movement to reach the concept
and idea to different sections of people. Hence as long as the present
Bottom of activists are restricted and mostly from an apolitical or
non-voting population without much association with any of the Mass
Movements, I think the above question itself is not valid here.
<Or does it convey that *Top* should be taken for granted for taking such
ethical stand on its
<own, and hence should not be criticised anymore, nor should anyone try
<to snatch credit for decisions that *Top* took on its own ?
Which of my posting made you to misinterpret like this? Also why this need
of snatching credit for decisions taken by Top ?
<Or should we accept that even when *Top* is constitutionally obliged to
<represent *Bottom*, *Bottom* should be seen as something very distinct
<from *Top*, and that they are not the same ?
Please avoid devitaing from the topic. It would be good if you can use the
same nergy to answer my questions in simple terms rather than throwing
questions completely out of context and nowhere related to what I asked. I
told you that the Social Movements has made the Bottom to influence teh Top
in bringing in policies and implementing those and I would like to see the
Free Software Movement also to be a similar Social Movement, which I feel as
of now is not so and asked some clarifications which nobody is answering.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM, ck raju <ck.thrissur at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Nidhin Sasi <nidhin.sasi at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > the Govt as per my knowledge till now (from the Top now from the Bottom).
> So you want us to believe that all decisions that *Top* took, was on
> its own without being influenced by anyone associated with FS ? Or
> does it extend still further - whereby all such Governments,
> constituted by elected representatives, comes into existence without
> any assistance or linkages with *Bottom* ? Or does it convey that
> *Top* should be taken for granted for taking such ethical stand on its
> own, and hence should not be criticised anymore, nor should anyone try
> to snatch credit for decisions that *Top* took on its own ? Or should
> we accept that even when *Top* is constitutionally obliged to
> represent *Bottom*, *Bottom* should be seen as something very distinct
> from *Top*, and that they are not the same ? I fail to see the sharp
> distinctions in such objects that you portray, for me, they are very
> blurred. May be problems with my vision.
> CK Raju
> _______________________________________________
> Fsf-friends mailing list
> Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in
> http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
>
------=_Part_69364_5839716.1231580040531
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div> </div>
<div><So you want us to believe that all decisions that *Top* took, was on<br><its own without being influenced by anyone associated with FS ?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#3333ff">That is what I asked 2 times in my mail for which nobody replied yet which prompted me to as the initiative taken by Govt as per my knowledge - again asking that question -</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div> <em><font color="#3333ff">It was mentioned in Anivar's mail that "Even the decision to adopt Free Software in<br>IT at School was decided in an SCERT meeting (with the support of 85% of<br>teachers) much before 2006 elections." . What efforts did the Free Software Social Movement do to make this process in action thereby qualifying itself to be called a "Movement" ?"</font></em></div>
<div><em></em> </div>
<div><em><</em>Or does it extend still further - whereby all such Governments,<br><constituted by elected representatives, comes into existence without<br><any assistance or linkages with *Bottom* ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div> <font color="#3333ff">First of all the Bottom I intended is that of the Free Software Movement. From my knowledge this bottom is as of now very much restricted and only to few of those who are techniclaly or ideologically or both ways attracted to Free Software. I want to see this as a Mass Movement to reach the concept and idea to different sections of people. Hence as long as the present Bottom of activists are restricted and mostly from an apolitical or non-voting population without much association with any of the Mass Movements, I think the above question itself is not valid here.</font></div>
<div><font color="#3333ff"></font> </div>
<div><font color="#000000"><Or does it convey that *Top* should be taken for granted for taking such ethical stand on its<br><own, and hence should not be criticised anymore, nor should anyone try<br><to snatch credit for decisions that *Top* took on its own ? </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#3333ff">Which of my posting made you to misinterpret like this? Also why this need of snatching credit for decisions taken by Top ? </font></div>
<div> </div>
<div><Or should we accept that even when *Top* is constitutionally obliged to<br><represent *Bottom*, *Bottom* should be seen as something very distinct<br><from *Top*, and that they are not the same ?</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font color="#3333ff">Please avoid devitaing from the topic. It would be good if you can use the same nergy to answer my questions in simple terms rather than throwing questions completely out of context and nowhere related to what I asked. I told you that the Social Movements has made the Bottom to influence teh Top in bringing in policies and implementing those and I would like to see the Free Software Movement also to be a similar Social Movement, which I feel as of now is not so and asked some clarifications which nobody is answering. </font></div>
<div><font color="#3333ff"></font> </div>
<div> </div>
<div><br> </div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:20 PM, ck raju <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ck.thrissur at gmail.com" target="_blank">ck.thrissur at gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Nidhin Sasi <<a href="mailto:nidhin.sasi at gmail.com" target="_blank">nidhin.sasi at gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>> the Govt as per my knowledge till now (from the Top now from the Bottom).<br>
</div>So you want us to believe that all decisions that *Top* took, was on<br>its own without being influenced by anyone associated with FS ? Or<br>does it extend still further - whereby all such Governments,<br>constituted by elected representatives, comes into existence without<br>
any assistance or linkages with *Bottom* ? Or does it convey that<br>*Top* should be taken for granted for taking such ethical stand on its<br>own, and hence should not be criticised anymore, nor should anyone try<br>to snatch credit for decisions that *Top* took on its own ? Or should<br>
we accept that even when *Top* is constitutionally obliged to<br>represent *Bottom*, *Bottom* should be seen as something very distinct<br>from *Top*, and that they are not the same ? I fail to see the sharp<br>distinctions in such objects that you portray, for me, they are very<br>
blurred. May be problems with my vision.<br>
<div>
<div></div>
<div>CK Raju<br>_______________________________________________<br>Fsf-friends mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in" target="_blank">Fsf-friends at mm.gnu.org.in</a><br><a href="http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends" target="_blank">http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_69364_5839716.1231580040531--
More information about the Fsf-friends
mailing list