ಫೋ‘ಕಸ’ದಿಂದ ರಸವಾಗಬೇಕಾದ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ...
(ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಫೋಕಸ್ ಕಳಕೊಂಡದ್ದು ಹೌದೆಂದು ಕೆಲವರು, ಇಲ್ಲ ಅದೆಲ್ಲ ಶುದ್ಧ ಬೊಗಳೆ ಎಂದು ಇನ್ನು ಕೆಲವರು ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಪಾತ್ರವನ್ನು ವಹಿಸುವ ಔದಾರ್ಯವನ್ನೂ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಕೆಲವರು. ಸಹೃದಯತೆ, ಸಜ್ಜನಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನು ತಂತಮ್ಮ ಪತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮೆರೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಬಹಳ ಸಂತೋಷದ ವಿಚಾರ. ಎಲ್ಲ ರೀತಿಯ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದ ಎಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ಹೃತ್ಪೂರ್ವಕ ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು (ಮತ್ತೊಮ್ಮೆ ಎಂದು ಏಕೆ ಬರೆದೆನೆಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಅಭ್ಯಾಸದಂತೆ ಈಮೈಲ್ ಬರೆದ ಪ್ರತಿಯಾಬ್ಬರಿಗೂ ವಿಳಂಬಿಸದೆ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಉತ್ತರವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಾಗಿದೆ). ಲೋಕೋ ಭಿನ್ನ ರುಚಿಃ ಎಂದ ಮೇಲೆ ಪರ ವಿರೋಧ ನಿಲುವುಗಳು ಇದ್ದದ್ದೇ. ಆದರೆ ಒಂದೇ ಒಂದು ಅಪೇಕ್ಷೆಯೆಂದರೆ ಆದಷ್ಟು ಮಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ, ಸ್ಪಷ್ಟವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ವಸ್ತುನಿಷ್ಠವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯಗಳನ್ನು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಸದಭಿರುಚಿಯನ್ನು ಗ್ರಹಿಸುವಲ್ಲಿ ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. - ಶ್ರೀವತ್ಸ ಜೋಶಿ)
* * *
Reading the back-and-forth emails I just thought I might comment a little bit. Nimma jothe eshto sala nimma vichitranna titles bagge, articles bagge discuss maadideeni, sometimes we have agreed and sometimes disagreed. And I truly think that it is healthy. But Joshi, just thought I would share my thoughts on this.
1. Constructive Criticism: America emba deshadalli ninthu maathaduvaaga ee eradu padagalannu [words] working class na ella members ondalla omme keliruthaare. I truly think it is important. Especially first part of the word. How much do you care about giving that comment shows in the way you give the comment. Sandhya avara email nodide, focus kaledukondide andaaga to tell you the truth, nange nimma focus enu anthaa thale keredukollo haagayithu. huh! Joshi For me an article stands on its own, I like it if it touches a cord in me, if it gets to me new information, if it gives me a new outlook of life, if it can just give me a little happiness,.....I dont care where it comes from. Just to give you an example, Ravi Belageres "Hai Bangalore" magazine first namma mane ge ethkondu bandaaga the first comment I recieved was - "Ey avanu thumbaa crime barithaananthe... do you read that kind of stuff..chee...". But even for today, his Khaas baat struck a cord in me and I knew that I liked his style of writing. Today look at the way "Hai Bangalore" is growing and the readers circle he has. Had he focused on crime or history only [his expertise] I wonder if he would grow out of it. So for me focus is out of focus! The only focus is it should be good writing with good intentions! Can we all focus on that?
2. I think that the word "cry baby" was not well recieved by your reader. Joshi,I think it bruised the emotions of the emailer. I think neevu haage baribaaradithu! Haage annisithapaa!
3. I think your arguements do make sense regarding the articles as to what was liked/disliked, what is expected etc. I cannot comment on all your articles and hence the changes, because I have not read all of your articles. aadre odida kelavanna thumbaa ishta pattideeni, ashte. Every writer has his own style of writing and readers like them for their style. None can affect it and none should. Enantheera?
- Shraavani; Columbus, Ohio
* * *
I Read the chain of mails between you and Sandhya.
I think that every writer has his own way of presenting what he wants to convey to his readers. A columnist soon becomes kind of stale after a while as it is hard to keep the same tempo over time, no matter how good a writer he is unless he is a literary critic or a political commentator( some issues with focus, I suppose). Considering the subjects that you chose, I think you have done a remarkable job getting the reader drawn to your articles all over the world over 18 months now.
But, Sandhya has her right to comment, I think.
I kind of sensed while reading your e-mails that the discussion was getting on to a personal level and you were getting a little touchy and a bit defensive. I am just writing about your e-mail and not the contents of vichitraannaa or the subjects you chose. I think it is entirely upto you to chose what you want to write. I agree with her that you should not chose your subjects based on what readers ask you to write. I say this with a lot of respect for the reading community.
You have the advantage of having a column which has "no focus" (as you have rightly pointed out). So I think it can sustain a little bit of static electricity and some shopping carts as long as it keeps bringing two loved ones together.
Hope you dont mind my comments.
- Guruprasad R Kaginele; Minnesota
* * *
Hope you are fine and doing well. I read the conversation between you and Sandya regarding "losing focus" issue. Without seriously entering into the actual aspect whether focus is lost or found back (or was it a Gaussian beam waist or Lorentzian!) let me quote contradictory views of Sandya.
She claims that you have lost the focus. She never pin points it authentically. She also claims the following phrases (copied and pasted from her own responce) Sandya wrote: "I wrote what I felt. It is completely up to a writer to write his/her article, articles should reflect his/her views, I believe, articles should not be tailored according to readers views"
The fact that she claimed that you lost fucus implies that she has a saying about the column or she has a vague (at least) imagination about the topics of the column. In the next e-mail she claims that, it is completely upto a writer to write his/her article. This contradicts her first statement. The second general remark is, "articles should not be tailored according to the readers views" is not completely true. Because, When a writer starts writing a new column he grabs the attention of a particular group of people. Later, knowingly or unknowingly (its natural) he becomes influenced by the responces of the readers. If he is too strong in his views, or if he is propagating a strong message/idealism he may shape the thinking style of those readers. When he becomes influenced by the responce of readers he may very well get inputs from various sources including readers or critics like Sandya. From where does a writer gets inspiration or subject - is left to his perception and his professionalism. This does not mean that a writer should not write articles according to readers views. Also, merely a readers view cannot be a complete article. An article is a combination of many such things.
Finally, I personally dont believe that there exists a physical focus (like in Laser beams) for a column. Also, in vichithranna discussing hardcore condensed matter physics will not be all that appreciated as well.
What do u think?
- D.M.Sagar; Netherlands
* * *
Yes, Joshi, I agree with Sandhya Kulkarni. I used to wait for Tuesdays to read your article. Not any more. But still I read your Vichitranna, but not like old ones. "Old is gold.."
-Venkat Reddy; City?
* * *
Looks like you wasted one week on this Sandhya madam. Oh.. how boring.. Who wants to put brains when reading ? Reading should be simple, fun to read, Vichitranna has been doing this. But everyday we cannot have 3 palya and 2 sambar with rice.
So if some episodes are not good, it is fine, read something else. Anyway, you continue to write.
- Roshan Shetty, New Jersey
* * *
Hello Mr. Srinivasa Joshi,
I visit thatskannada.com and your column everyday and enjoy it. I read the whole e-mail conversation between you and Ms. Sandhya. I appreciate and applaud her letters of concern about your column losing focus. What didnt impress me was your response to her letters. There is a reader, who liked your column and after a while thought that you are losing focus and wrote a letter indicating the same. ( I dont think she is complaining in her e-mail like a cry-baby.... she is just telling you what she observed.. thats not a complaint. If she had written to thatskannada.com to take out your articles, thats complaint. All she did was a positive criticism) and the response you gave her was a COMPLAINT like a CRY-BABY. I think it wasnt her who acted like a cry baby, it was you who acted like a Cry-baby. Reason, you are the one who complained to her that she should have written an appreciation letter to you before.
Now, I liked your column and like it even now. But I never wrote a praising letter. When everything is good, its human nature to keep quiet. If you check the number of hits to your page that indicates how many people are visiting and appreciating it. But when something is wrong, thats when concerned readers like Sandhya and me, criticise in a positive way so that it helps you, thatskannada.com as well as we readers. I am sorry for not writing to you telling you that YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB, I think that should be done by thatskannada.com by looking at the hits on your page. Every time I visit thatskannada.com and your page, its the expression of my appreciation.
Instead of arguing with a good reader, its better if you analyze what they said, what they expect and what you can do about it. Again this is not a negative criticism, take it in a POSITIVE way.
If you could forward my e-mail to Sandhya and compliment her on my behalf for such concern, I would really appreciate.
- Narendra Narayana; City?
* * *
I am not so intelligent to tell whether you have lost the focus or not. I just enjoy reading the column Vichitranna every week.
And for a change, I did really enjoy reading this guDha guDhi of mails between You and Ms. Sandya :-)
- Leena; Bangalore
* * *
I am regular reader of your article "Vichitrana" and i enjoy reading them. I also read concerns raised by Sandhya Kulkarni and your responses to that. It was a good debate and i sincerely believe winners in this debate will be "readers"( we). I am sure we will get to read fun filled - pun filled vichitrana. May be readers like Sandhya Kulkarni and of course me, do not want any "vichaara" in vichitrana.. I am not commenting anything about "quality" of those serious, thoughtful articles. They are good and informative (I need not say which of those, need I!) but may be that is not what we "expect" in vichitrana. You made vichitrana many times " Sachitra " ( photo quiz, logo quiz).
My concluding words will be - Please continue writing as you feel appropriate. Please do not get disturbed by "what readers want".
- Vijay Kulkarni; Minneapolis
* * *
According to me, vichitranna has not lost the focus. It is still providing the FACTS in an understandable way. For example, the article on static charge was good. I learnt a lot. That is what is expected. We dont need an article full of humor, as there are ample of such things elsewhere.
Athresh Kumar B.S; Bangalore
* * *
Few comments on the opinion around "Focus" mail. Sandhya is looking for more fun-filled articles in column. Probably you were harsh on the
reader by addressing her as Cry Baby. As she said, a best friend is the one, who tells your faults in a private.
Having said that, I dont think vichithranna has lost its focus. As you wrote in your very first article, this column is a mixture of fun, puzzle, analysis, sarcasm, pun etc. The column is progressing in that direction. Each reader will have his preferences. I enjoyed few articles more than the others. If I dont enjoy a particular article, I simply wait for next Tuesday!
- Prakash Devendra; Dublin, Ireland
* * *
I read the entire email exchange between you and Ms Sandhya Kulkarni. To me it looked like, you might have over-reacted and forced her a bit. Excuse me if I am wrong, but a reader has all the right to criticize an article. And I feel, expecting some compliments from any one before getting the criticisam is not necessory and mandatory.
And moreover, your cartoon might have made her crazy. Any ways, keep the good spirit and continue to write good articles in the column.
With best regards,
- Santosh & Priti Kotnis; Ohio
* * *
Since you asked to write, am writing.
I think Sandhya has some valid points that your articles seem to be written in a hurry or you just pick a subject or theme and write on it mechanically. The "Tell me why" kind of subjects can get boring - and not everyone is really interested in how shopping cart works or how it came about. That would be good if relegated to the website you (used?) to run - on Geocites where you were publishing stuff on subjects like American flag etc etc.
Some of your columns are classics - Agoli Manjanna, Mullu Southe etc. But recently I have observed that you are just going through the motions.
Hope you will take this in right spirit.
- Gajanana; city?
* * *
ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನದ ಫೋಕಸ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಓದಿದೆ. ನನ್ನ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ ಹೇಳೋಣ ಅನ್ನಿಸಿತು. ಫೋಕಸ್ ಕಳೆದಿರೋದು ಎಲ್ಲ ಶುದ್ಧ ಸುಳ್ಳು, ಯಾಕಂದ್ರೆ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಅಂಕಣಕ್ಕೆ ಒಂದು ಇಶ್ಯೂ ಅಥವಾ ಐಡಿಯಲಿಸಂ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಎಂದಾದರೂ ಫೋಕಸ್ ಇತ್ತಾ , ನನಗಂತೂ ಅನ್ನಿಸೊಲ್ಲ. ನೀವೇ ಹೇಳಿರುವ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಇನ್ಫೊಟೈನ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಹೊರತು, ಒಂದು ನಿರ್ದಿಷ್ಟ ಇಶ್ಯೂ ಮೇಲೆ ಫೋಕಸ್ ಆಗಿ ಬರುವ ಲೇಖನಮಾಲೆ ಖಂಡಿತ ಅಲ್ಲ.
ಆದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಅಗುತ್ತಿರುವುದು ಏನಂದರೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ಟಿಪಿಕಲ್ ‘ಜನ ಚೇಂಜ್ ಬಯಸ್ತಾರೆ...’ ಸಿಂಡ್ರೊಮ್! ಮೊದಮೊದಲು ವಿಚಿತ್ರನ್ನದಲ್ಲಿ ಲೇಖನಗಳು ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದವು, ನಂತರ ಕ್ವಿಜ್, ಪ್ರಶ್ನಾವಳಿ, ಒಗಟು ಜಾಣ್ಮೆಲೆಕ್ಕಗಳು ಬಂದು ತುಂಬಾ ರಿಫ್ರೆಶಿಂಗ್ ಆಗಿ ಇದ್ದವು! ಈ ಸ್ಪರ್ಧೆಗಳು ಬಹುಮಾನಗಳು ತುಂಬಾ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿದ್ದವು. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆಯೂ ಏನಾದರೊಂದು ಹೊಸತು ಕೊಡಿ, ಆಗ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿರುತ್ತೆ. ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, ಇನ್ನೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ಇಂಟರಾಕ್ಟಿವ್ ಆಗಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ? ಓದುಗರ ಆಯ್ದ ಚುಟುಕಗಳು, ಓದುಗರ ಲೇಖನ ಅದಕ್ಕೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪೂರಕ ಅಭಿಪ್ರಾಯ? ಓದುಗರ ಸಂವಾದಗಳು ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ...? ನನಗನಿಸಿದ್ದು ಹೇಳಿದೆ, ಮಿಕ್ಕಿದ್ದು, ನೀವು ಮತ್ತೆ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಸೂಪರ್ ಹಿಟ್ ಆಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡುವಿರಿ ಎಂದು ನಂಬಿಕೆ ಇದೆ... ;-)
- ಚೈತನ್ಯ ರಾಮ್; (ಕ್ಯಾಂಪ್: ಲಾಸ್ ಏಂಜಲೀಸ್) ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು
* * *
ಆತ್ಮೀಯ ಶ್ರೀವತ್ಸ ಜೋಷಿಯವರೆ,
ನಿಮಗೆ ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಸಂಧ್ಯಾ ಕುಲಕರ್ಣಿಯವರು ಬರೆದ ಪತ್ರ ಮತ್ತದಕ್ಕೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತ್ಯುತ್ತರದ ‘ಸವಾಲ್ ಜವಾಬ್’ ನೋಡಿದೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ಎಂದಿನ reply within no time ತುಂಬ ಪ್ರಶಂಸನೀಯವಾದದ್ದು. ಎಲ್ಲ ಅಂಕಣಕಾರರೂ ಇದೇ ಪ್ರವೃತ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಬೆಳೆಸಿಕೊಂಡರೆ ತುಂಬ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಆದರೆ ಆಕೆಗೆ ಉತ್ತರ ಕೊಡುವಲ್ಲಿ ನೀವು ಕೊಂಚ touchy ಆದಿರೆಂದು ನನಗನ್ನಿಸಿತು. ಜತೆಗೆ ನೀವು ಕೇವಲ ಈ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಿಮಗನುಕೂಲವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸಿದವರನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಪುರಸ್ಕರಿಸುತ್ತೀರೆಂಬ ಭಾವನೆ ಬರಲು ಎಡೆಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಂತೆ ಅನ್ನಿಸಿತು. ಆಕೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಂಚ ಸತ್ಯವೂ ಇತ್ತೆಂದರೆ ನಿಮಗೆ ಬೇಸರವಾಗಲಿಕ್ಕಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಭಾವಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಅರೆರೆ! ನಾನು ಹೀಗೆ ಬರೆದೆ ಅಂತ ಕೋಪಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬೇಡಿ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ಜತೆಗಿನ ಸಖ್ಯವನ್ನು ತುಂಬ ‘ಕಷ್ಟಪಟ್ಟು’ ಗಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಒಂದು ಕಹಿಮಾತಿನಿಂದ ಕಳೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ನಾನು ಇಚ್ಛಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಉದಾಹರಣೆಗೆ, ಇತ್ತೀಚಿನ ‘ಅದುವೆಕನ್ನಡಬಿಂದುಕಾಮಿನಲ್ಲಿ..’ ಮೂಡಿಬಂದ ಪರಿಚಯದ, ಗೆಳೆತನದ, ಪ್ರಣಯದ ನಿರೀಕ್ಷಿತ ಕಥೆಯನ್ನೇ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳಿ, ಏನಿದೆ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶೇಷ? ಮಧ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಹಂಸ ದೌತ್ಯ ಇತ್ತೆಂಬುದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟರೆ ಮಿಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ವಿಷಯಗಳೂ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಜಾಲ ಚಾರಣಿಗರಿಗೆ ಪರಿಚಿತವಾಗಿವೆ, ಚಲನಚಿತ್ರ ಕೂಡಾ ಆಗಿಬಿಟ್ಟಿವೆ. ಅನಾಮಿಕತೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡುವ ನೆಪದಲ್ಲಿ ನೀವು ವಿವಾಹದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಪನ್ನಗೊಂಡ ಈ ಪ್ರಣಯದ ಪ್ರೇಮಿಗಳ ಹೆಸರನ್ನೂ ಹೇಳದೆ ಹೋದಿರಿ. ಹೆಸರು ಗೊತ್ತಾದರೆ ಕನಿಷ್ಠ ಈ ದಂಪತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅಭಿನಂದಿಸಬಹುದಿತ್ತು.
ಇಷ್ಟಾದರೂ ಈ ಜಾಲ ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಅಂಕಣ ನಿಮ್ಮದೆಂದು ಮನಃಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಕಾರಣ ತುಂಬ ಸುಲಭ. ಸರಳ ಭಾಷೆ, ಸುಲಲಿತ ನಿರೂಪಣೆ ಮತ್ತು ವೈವಿಧ್ಯಮಯ ವಿಷಯಗಳ ಆಯ್ಕೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಪ್ರತಿಭೆ ಬೇಕು, ನೀವು ಬರೆದ ನಂತರ ‘ನಾನೂ ಕನ್ನಡ ಬರೆಯಬಲ್ಲೆ’ ಎಂಬ ಹಮ್ಮಿನಿಂದ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯಿಸುವ ನನ್ನಂಥವರು ನಿಮ್ಮಿಂದ ಕಲಿಯುವುದು ಬಹಳಷ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಪತ್ರದಿಂದ ಅಸಮಾಧಾನವಾದರೆ ಕೃಪೆ ಮಾಡಿ ಕ್ಷಮಿಸಿ. ಆದರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ prompt ಪ್ರತ್ಯುತ್ತರಕ್ಕೆ ಇದರಿಂದ ಲೋಪ ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನಂಬಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
- ಡಾ. ಭರತ್ ಎನ್. ಎಸ್. ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರಿ.; ಪೋರ್ಟ್ ಟಾಲ್ಬಟ್, ಯು.ಕೆ.
* * *
I read the entire con(mail)versation between u and Sandhya. It was good to read.
But regarding the focus issue, I dont think Vichitranna has lost its focus. Strictly speaking there should not be any focus for vichitranna. it should roam around any topic which is thinkable, is between/around us. Just as chitranna is a mixture of uppu, huLi, khAra, etc etc., we expect that Vichitranna also should be catering to all possible tastes. It should not stick to only one field and that is what Vichitranna is doing right now and your concept of Infotainment is 100% being achieved in these articles!
As the name itself indicates, it should be "Vichitra" i.e., strange and surprise. So it will fulfill its purpose if it gives the unexpected articles. We never expected there is so much behind static shock which we face almost daily even here in Bangalore. Like that, always expect the unexpected, and one will enjoy anything!! Thats my opinion.
- Ashok H.S; Bangalore
* * *
How are you doing ? Just read the debate. A "little" different (as always, unique in your own way), but a "little" too personal. But, I guess thats what writing is all about, read all my poems and you can write my life history even without meeting me -:))
Constructive criticism is very good, but I dont agee with Sandhyas views that a writer should not tailor his/her writings according to readers views. It really depends on what you are writing and if you happen to be the writer of "vichitrAnna", then better look for readers comments. And, you have been doing that very well, which is good.
I did feel, that you were a little "hurt" that she never complimented on any of your works which she liked. Come oooooon -:)))))
"lOkO bhinna ruchiHi", how true. I like your recent articles much much much more than the earlier ones. Your column is a good read and keep up the good work !!!
Fun Always !
- Sukumar Raghuram; California
* * *
A Columnist enjoys lot of freedom while he/she picks up a subject for debate, illustration, erudition. Thats on one side. On the other side kannada readers search for humor, fun based artiles. That stuff is very rare on the net. That is the reason might be, sandhya is looking for relaxed, light reading material from vichitranna.
Well, the focus of the column is not mere fun, we know, we underline.
I am happy that you take every feedback with due respect and handle the person/issue diligently.
- S.K. Shama Sundara, Editor www.thatskannada.com
* * *
Logic ಮತ್ತು Logisitc Mouse ಜತೆಗೂಡಿದರೆ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನದ ಜತೆ ಒಂದು ಕಪ್ ರಸಾಯನ (ಅಥವಾ ಗರಂ ಗರಂ ಕಷಾಯ?) ಬಡಿಸಿದಂತೆ ಆಯ್ತು!
ಸಂಧ್ಯಾ ಕುಲಕರ್ಣಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ನಿಮಗೆ ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಧನ್ಯವಾದಗಳು.
ನಿಮ್ಮಿಬ್ಬರ ಓದುಗ, ಹಿತೈಷಿ,
-- ಮಧುಸೂದನ ಪೆಜತ್ತಾಯ; ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು
* * *
ನಾನು ನಿಮ್ಮ ಹಳೆಯ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಸಂಚಿಕೆಗಳನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಇದೀಗ ಓದಿದೆ. ನಾನು ಅಮೆರಿಕೆಗೆ ಜುಲೈನಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು, ಹಳೆಯ ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನ ಲೇಖನಗಳನ್ನೆಲ್ಲ ಓದಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ಫ್ರೀಯಾಗಿದ್ದೆ, ಓದಿದೆ. ಡಾ।ರಾಜ್ ಕುರಿತು ನೀವು ಬರೆದಿರುವ ಹತ್ತು ಮುತ್ತುಗಳು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿವೆ. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಅಕ್ಷರಗಳ ಜೋಡಣೆಯ ಉತ್ತರ ‘ನಾನು ವಿಚಿತ್ರಾನ್ನದ ಓದುಗ’. ‘ಬಂಗಾರದ ಮನುಷ್ಯ’ ದಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜ್ಕುಮಾರ್ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಿದ ಪಾತ್ರದ ಹೆಸರು ರಾಜೀವ ಎಂದು ಅಲ್ಲವೆ?
ಎಲ್ಲ ಓದುವ ಅವಕಾಶ ನನಗೆ ಸಿಕ್ಕಿದ್ದು ಯಾಕೆಂದರೆ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ಸಂಧ್ಯಾ ಕುಲಕರ್ಣಿಯವರ ಡಿಬೇಟ್ನಿಂದ. ನಿಮ್ಮಿಬ್ಬರ ವಾಗ್ವಾದದಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಲಾಭವಾಯ್ತು !
- ಗಾಯಿತ್ರಿ ಶೇಷಾಚಲ; ಲಾಸ್ ಎಂಜಲೀಸ್