RE:I don't understand this article by Tathagata Mukherjee on Dec 17, 2007 08:56 PM   Permalink This article has questioned historical facts. You need to have first understanding of those. Exactly where u have doubt?    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:I don't understand this article by tumpalahiri on Dec 17, 2007 08:58 PM   Permalink This passage is bullshit...    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:I don't understand this article by Tathagata Mukherjee on Dec 17, 2007 09:06 PM   Permalink you are intellectually handicapped.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:I don't understand this article by abc on Dec 17, 2007 09:13 PM   Permalink I also had similar feelings when i first read it. I then re-read the article and it makes a lot more sense. I think the end is quite abrupt and when I read it the first time, I wasn't prepared for the article to end. In the second rount I knew it all along what he wanted to say in the end so the preceeding paragraphs made more sense. I think...    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:I don\'t understand this article by Tathagata Mukherjee on Dec 17, 2007 08:55 PM   Permalink This article has questioned historical facts and how they unfolded. You need to first have an understanding of those facts. Exactly where you have doubt?    Forward   |   'Report abuse' disabled by moderator
RE:I don't understand this article by tumpalahiri on Dec 17, 2007 09:00 PM   Permalink I went through this feeling....surely the writer is confused or may be he is given the work of writing some passages for RC section of CAT. Dont be surprised if you find this pr a similar passage in one of those CAT papers    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:RE:I don't understand this article by Tathagata Mukherjee on Dec 17, 2007 09:04 PM   Permalink Another option is, you are intellectually handicapped.    Forward   |   Report abuse
RE:I don't understand this article by pepsi on Dec 17, 2007 09:04 PM   Permalink @tumpalahir did u give CAT??? ~cheers,pepsi    Forward   |   Report abuse
Message deleted by moderator