| « August 2008 » | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 | ||||||
Recently by GT
- Insurance.
- The Next President.
- The mauling of adivasis in Assam.
- Nandigram: What is the problem?
- Gujrat: Knowing is not enough, we need to remember.
- Quo Vadis?
- Transition to democracy -1.
- Not so fast.
- What now?
- Geelani's views?
- So finally ...
- Kaal.
- No Title
- No Title
- Further on in the debate:
- Reply to Masadi continued:
Masadi you say:
"Now is this "equity based on justice" just a pie in the sky concept or can it be operationalized to where its indicators are plain as daylight to see. The answer is of course it can be operationalized. Now, within that exclusivity, decisions can be made without any "preference" based on hierarchy.
Within most "exclusivity" many things can be done. The problem is that in reality things get out of the exclusivity. In my example, if you consider only ’a’ and ’b’ and leave ’c’ out there will be no problem.
I have a suspicion that you are averse to understanding my example for whatever reason. No problem. All the best.
add to my favorite ilogs
flag objectionable content
GT
- Interacts: 1198
- iLogs: 11
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 4986
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Oct 22 2005
- Last signin: Aug 29 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list


