Re: [HumJanenge] Re: 100 Years of our National Anthem washed away by corrupt activists

Dear Victor

The reason a few people (not several) occasionally get a few strong
words from me is because I (as group moderator) cannot permit fools
and foolishness on this group for the larger benefit of our
"intellectual" membership.

As an example of foolishness I take up your latest statement

"Now, if one would care for an analysis, one would find that more
corrupt a nation, the more backward it is in terms of broad economic
and social parameters. That should in itself put an end to the
usefulness of corruption."

I take this to mean that you find a "positive" CORRELATION between
corruption and backwardness in nations. I also presume you mean that
if corruption was to reduce then backwardness would too. Probably you
mean that corruption is a CAUSE for backwardness.

This is a completely FALLACIOUS argument - although it is appealing to
simple minded folks to whom Anna Hazare and his ilk addresses.

Please read this, it is one of the basis things we were taught at
engineering university (2nd year during one of the statistics
courses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If you have any query / concerns, I would would be happen to assist you.

Sarbajit

On 12/30/11, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr. Sarbajit:
> Several members, including myself, have felt the unwarranted searing heat
> from your pen.
> You may (or may not) be the intellectual, but it would be better to read
> temperate words and discussions.
> Now, if one would care for an analysis, one would find that more corrupt a
> nation, the more backward it is in terms of broad economic and social
> parameters. That should in itself put an end to the usefulness of
> corruption. Of course, one may argue with definitions, but then, one can
> argue with and about anything.
> To my mind, corruption is a serious issue; indeed it is THE ONLY ISSUE in a
> country where maybe 50% go hungry to bed, where justice takes decades, where
> an unemployable neta racks up 100 crores within a decade of "public
> service", where the Planning Commission wants to declare Rs 30 or 40 as the
> dividing line of poverty', where China was behind us on all social and
> economic parameters till just 40 odd years ago, but now is typically, 4
> times ahead, .... ad infinatum.
> Whatever one may agree or disagree with, let us use our words
> more judicially.
> Regards,
> Victor