<So you want us to believe that all decisions that *Top* took, was on
<its own without being influenced by anyone associated with FS ?"
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 -
It was mentioned in Anivar's mail that "Even the decision to adopt Free Software in
IT at School was decided in an SCERT meeting (with the support of 85% of
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" ?"
<Or does it extend still further - whereby all such Governments,
<constituted by elected representatives, comes into existence without
<any assistance or linkages with *Bottom* ?
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.
<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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Nidhin Sasi <
nidhin.sasi@gmail.com> wrote:
> the Govt as per my knowledge till now (from the Top now from the Bottom).
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.