Re: Minimum wages, competition and 200 years of success.

[Puneet Singh <psingh@scdt.intel.com>]

Group,

I am in favour of maintaining a level of conversation that is acceptable
in any professional organization. We all have our limits to what we 
measure as acceptable, if Mr kush does not respect, know what these limits
are I will request I be pulled out of this list too.

Also, Sanjeev, I realized my reply to your mail was not copied to the rest
or myself. Can you please forward it to the group.

Puneet

> Dear Kush/ friends,
> 
> Sorry for being a "controller" and "moderator." People are perhaps
> offended not only by language issues but by other things also (maybe the
> act of forceful argument?).. I know that the definition of use of language
> as polite/impolite has been changing over the times. But I am a very old
> civil servant, and I know that any argument using newly fangled words will
> not be published in any reputed academic journal. That was the standard we
> set ourselves out, to begin with (I hope!).
> 
> So, sorry about the oversight, folks, but Kush is right. We cannot perhaps
> even have the luxury of kicking butt on this list (though in my "book" I
> do transgress some borders myself). Charu, a very old class friend, will
> understand that Kush has a point about my overlooking things. I've got to
> be fair here... 
> 
> Everyone appreciates I am sure that the idea here is to build this into a
> sustainable list which can actually do the task which it has set out to
> perform, namely, to build a Manifesto and an Agenda, without offending
> people on issues not related to content. Only the oil of super-politeness
> can sustain us through this long and arduous task. At the end of all this
> we might all decide to meet some where to kick ... and talk B... over a
> drink or two (!)
> 
> In the meanwhile, I am sorry to report that we have lost Mitali from this
> list. She was probably offended by something we (I?) did. I wrote this to
> her today (extracts):
> 
> "While fully appreciating your discretion to leave the list as and when
> you like, I was hoping to get valuable alternative viewpoints on the list
> so that we can hammer out a policy document which can be published in a
> few months.
> 
> "I hope you were not offended by the tone of any person (probably me?) on
> the list. I was wanting to get a point across. I fully appreciate the
> concern with the poor, but I am by now nearly 40 years old, wizened,
> wrinkled, and have seen enough of our systems to know that interventionism
> by government cannot work the way we have designed it. This intervention
> most often goes against the interests of the poor unless very (very) 
> carefully designed.
> 
> "I hope you will find time to come back to the list in due course."
> 
> I thank Kush for an excellent piece. I have no choice but to respond to
> Kush on some of his main content. But that will be later today. 
> 
> Sanjeev
> 
>