Proposal for joint India-Pakistan currency

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992

These two nations are still fighting an occasional, and still very hot war.
Hard to fathom their setting aside their differences to have a common
currency. Before 1948 more or less they did have a common currency with the
British Raj issues.

Dave

--
emails to (myuserid).at.lycos.com

Tir nam Beann, nan Gleann, s'nan Gaisgeach - Saor Alba A-Nis!
"John Stone" wrote in message
om...
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/04

In article ,
John Stone wrote:
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992

I'm getting really annoyed at posting of bare URLs, with no reason
given for why we might care to read up on it (except a small Subject
line), no summary, nothing left here for Google Groups searching later
.... basically no basis for discussion, and discussion is the reason
for Usenet. (Well, except for alt.peeves and misc.test and such.)

From the article, this is a proposal from the chief minister of
Haryana state. It was split from Punjab in 1966, being the mostly
Hindi-speaking area. It's not on the border, and it's only the 16th
most populous state out of 28 -- and if you ignore the small
seven-digit states (counting Jammu and Kashmir in there), it's next to
smallest in population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_population

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To:

On 11 Sep 2004 21:08:01 -0500, (Tim McDaniel) wrote:

In article ,
John Stone wrote:
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992

I'm getting really annoyed at posting of bare URLs, with no reason
given for why we might care to read up on it (except a small Subject
line), no summary, nothing left here for Google Groups searching later
... basically no basis for discussion, and discussion is the reason
for Usenet. (Well, except for alt.peeves and misc.test and such.)

Indeed. There are copyright and other legal issues that prohibit the
publication of the full article in this NG, and John could probably
get in trouble with CNN if he posted so many full articles here.

However, there's really no reason why he couldn't copy the first
paragraph or offer some other pertinent comment for the reasons you
suggest.

Padraic.

la cieurgeourea provoer mal trasfu
ast meiyoer ke 'l andrext ben trasfu.

(Tim McDaniel) wrote in message ...
In article ,
John Stone wrote:
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992

I'm getting really annoyed at posting of bare URLs, with no reason
given for why we might care to read up on it (except a small Subject
line), no summary, nothing left here for Google Groups searching later
... basically no basis for discussion, and discussion is the reason
for Usenet. (Well, except for alt.peeves and misc.test and such.)

From the article, this is a proposal from the chief minister of
Haryana state. It was split from Punjab in 1966, being the mostly
Hindi-speaking area. It's not on the border, and it's only the 16th
most populous state out of 28 -- and if you ignore the small
seven-digit states (counting Jammu and Kashmir in there), it's next to
smallest in population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_of_India_by_population


If you don't like it then don't read it, nobody is forcing you to.
Are you too lazy to go beyond the subject line to see for yourself if it
is of interest? There is plenty of discussion going on with some of the
articles without having a little summary for those too lazy to click on
the URL. I'm posting these because I thought the articles would be of
interest and then a whiner comes in complaining about this and that.
Get a life.

In article ,
John Stone wrote:
too lazy to click on the URL

I read Usenet newsgroups and e-mail offline on a Linux system. So,
for me, reading a Web page means going to another window, starting a
dialup session, waiting for it to connect, cursing if it fails (some
days I always connect, some days it may take five or so tries; MegaPOP
sucks asteroids thru a pipette), going back to the original window,
copying the text from the Usenet news reader program, going to a third
window, pasting the URL, and reading. Then, when I'm done with all my
WWW activities, going back to window #2 to shut down the connection.
If that's "lazy", God save me from being busy.

There is plenty of discussion going on with some of the articles
without having a little summary

I read this newsgroup for the discussion *here*, and putting facts and
opinions here can lead to discussion here.

I'm posting these because I thought the articles would be of
interest

They *are* of interest. (In varying amounts, of course, but that's
common in matters of taste.) Since you already have the articles in
front of you to copy-and-paste the URLs, you can summarize.

--
Tim McDaniel; Reply-To:

"Scottishmoney" wrote in message ...
These two nations are still fighting an occasional, and still very hot war.
Hard to fathom their setting aside their differences to have a common
currency. Before 1948 more or less they did have a common currency with the
British Raj issues.

Dave

--
emails to (myuserid).at.lycos.com

Tir nam Beann, nan Gleann, s'nan Gaisgeach - Saor Alba A-Nis!
"John Stone" wrote in message
om...
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pakistan.aspx?id=39992


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/04



I don't see them cooperating to the point of issuing a joint currency
anytime in the near future. There is such a long history of distrust
between the two countries. The dispute over Kashmir seems to be as
entrenched as the Israel-Palestinian conflict.