Subscribe To My Podcast

Dec 29, 2005

Me Myself & I - Thoughts on Terror Town

Couple of days back, my husband casually mentioned about a shootout in an area in another nearby city and that his colleagues had been in that area Before the shootout. Heart went into a panic mode. You will have to go there? Your colleagues will have to go again? Did we go there, when we went to that city? Thats another city which in my list has become unsafe. But then where are the safe places?

When I came back from a trip to Chennai, some months back, I was informed there had been a shootout in the supermarket I shop. What! Oh no! What if it had been me? Now there is a joke, that like lightning, perhaps there wont be an attack there again and that its one of the "safe" places to shop.
I went only once after this, and was pointed out the "landmarks" by friends. I didnt like it, and will go there only if I have to go. But that isnt the only landmark. There are other spots in the town too, which isnt easier on my mind. Dramatically I label the town I am living in, terror town and yearn to go back to "safe" Chennai.

Terror is not new to me. I was in Mumbai during the Blasts. And once there was a bomb explosion and my sibling had been in the earlier train. Until I got the call, went through hell. And perhaps from then on, everytime someone leaves the house without me, I wonder if they would return home "safely".

Terrorism has not changed the way I live, but certainly the way I think.

I dont do anything different. Because I think its pointless to do anything different. I used to think it would be wiser avoiding the markets on the weekend, but then we do what we have to do. Just try to be more careful. Hmmm what do I mean by more careful? Always on the lookout, hmmm but I cant see in all the directions at all the time.

So other than worrying and thinking about it, I dont do anything different. Though I do watch the news a lot and call my husband whenever "something" happens.

And insensitivevly I console myself, thankfully I am not in Iraq, where it seems more of a news when there isnt a bomb blast in a week.

Sure I am paranoid, and I also worry about road accidents. But somehow dying due to terrorism seems more terrible.

The post probably seems lame. Well I am never comfortable discussing how I feel. But I will try to come to my point.

I have written over 250 posts. And though terrorism is on my mind, most of the time, this is the first post that I am writing about terrorism.

Hunger, Health, Sanitation, Law these are more important. They claim more victims. Yet, why does Terror takes so much of headline space in media. Because the reader and those who can buy the products advertised in the media, can be victims of terror but not of hunger or health issues like maternal or neo natal mortality or tuberculosis? I dont know.

Then again why only one group of terror. Why the obsession with Al Qaeda and their LeT variants. Why not the Naxals? If there is an Naxal attack, sure there is an headline, but there isnt an outrage. Life is life, what is the difference. Or is it because Naxals dont attack in Mumbai Delhi Kolkatta Chennai and Bangalore? Another I dont know.

My heart goes out to the family of the victim. They are experiencing what I dread everyday of experiencing.

Terrorism is evil, no doubt, but its not the only evil.

And while we may not be able to bring him back, we can save someone perhaps if we click on Where they say 7000 Indians die everyday from hunger and a click from you , could help.

PS : If I had been born a muslim, would I away get away with 250 posts with not even one condemning Terrorism? I wonder.

Blog Post no. 252
Me Myself and I series


  1. WD,

    Well it surely hurts when something happens close to you. Its been twice in couple of months that terrorism has touched me closely..once in Delhi and Now in IISc...Maybe that is due to personal reasons..

    As you know I am not against any religion or with any religion..But when things start happening to people close to you without any fault of wonder..

    let me give u an example...after the delhi blasts when I was travelling in the train..seated next to me were two maulvis obviously rich and influntial...and one of them said that things like delhi blast should happen to remind "these" people..

    I don't know what to think, but when they got down there was a huge crowd at the station to welcome them.

    Don't think I am getting biased or sumthing, i have a lot of Muslim friends..Just that the ignorance is much more pronounced in their community..

  2. Well as long as we have politicians who want to treat symptoms instead of root cause, this will continue. Hope somebody like Gandhi who worked among the people emerges. Terrorism is caused when politicians sacrifice long term peace for short term parchochialism

  3. spark i respect you. and it hurts me to write this, but i think you are biased.

    when i wrote
    A maternal death audit conducted by the ministry of health and family planning showed that the maternal mortality rate in Uttar Pradesh was 707 per 100,000, whereas for the rest of India the figure was 404 per 100,000.

    Uttar Pradesh's statistics on maternal and child health

    Total population of Uttar Pradesh: 16.6 crore (2001 census)

    Around 54,00,000 children are born in Uttar Pradesh each year.

    Of these, 450,000 infants die before they are one year old,

    275,000 infants die before the age of one month.

    Of the more than 54,00,000 pregnant women, only 225,000 receive the full check-up and care that they require during pregnancy.

    Over 40,00,000 women deliver without any skilled attendant present, and

    over 45,00,000 deliver at home.

    Of the women who deliver at home, 42,00,000 are not visited by a health worker even two months after childbirth.

    Conditions at government health centres and hospitals - The Government of India conducted a survey to understand the status of government healthcare facilities in 2000. The report on Uttar Pradesh mentions:

    Total number of Primary Health Centers surveyed: 486.
    Only 10 had a working telephone, 418 did not have a working vehicle.
    A medical officer was not present at 107 PHCs. Female health staff was not complete in 442 PHCs; Male staff was incomplete in 403 places.
    342 PHCs did not have labour room equipment;
    418 places did not have normal delivery kits; and 467 places did not have emergency delivery kits/drugs.

    Of a total number of 34 first referral units surveyed (FRUs are hospitals like community health centres and district hospitals where facilities for Caesarean operations should be available),
    16 FRUs did not have a working vehicle,
    24 FRUs did not have a telephone.
    Eighteen FRUs had an obstetrician posted,
    but only two places had an anaesthetist.
    Anaesthesia equipment was available in 16 places, but emergency labour drugs were only available in six places.
    Oxygen cylinders were available in 19 places

    your initial reaction to maternal mortality in UP

    was "but a BIG reason for all those sorry figures is due to the large presence of a particuar "minority" community in UP...Last I heard there was a rumour going on that community that giving two drops of Polio vaccines to a child would limit the number of offspring in the child to two.!!!!!!!!!! No I didn't read it somewhere, actually met a woman who believed that..!!! "

    and why do I still respect you?
    well aftr few rounds it went to
    "OK..we got digressed a bit :)
    Will try to think of better reasons, in order of severity:
    1. High corruption.
    2. Total ignorance on part of people.
    3. high medical costs, in private hospitals.
    4. Doctors unwilling to go to the rural areas.
    5. Lack of women empowerment.
    6. Surprisingly fund is *NOT* that big a problem.
    7. Disregard for female life.
    8. People like me. who never even tried making a difference. Though that was partly because I didn't knew how can help. "

    just having muslim friends dont make you an expert on muslims. and doesnt give you the right to label them.

    its easy to find 10 "rage" in Hindus. But if a muslim happened to equate all hindus with rage, would it be fine?
    the maulvis have to be condemned just like we would condemn hindus if they said a said a similar statement after a gujrat riots or delhi riots.

    btw they are stupid, to think muslims would be automatically immune to bomb blasts.
    bombs and bullets affect humans irrespective of which religion they belong to.

    and oh btw even Naxalites are terrorists.

    dont think if anyone else had written this would, have written this:D but then i think you can take it and i agree that i can be wrong about you:) sorry if i am.

  4. If I had been born a muslim, would I away get away with 250 posts with not even one condemning Terrorism?

    Yeah. That's so typical view of the public.

  5. safe chennai???? well they hav done it in b'lore....mayb next it'll b chennai....dunno man these day one cant even cal ur own house safe....some some sucker would want to rob u nd drive a knife thro to get his money...i call even tht terrosim...

    nd only the muslims cause all these acts of terror is all bullshit.....even the early christians 'cause terror among the native indians in amricas....there has been terrisiom happ in all the ages...jus tht there is better media to covert a whole lot of modern wepons.

  6. WD,

    Ok on that post i agree that I was wrong or maybe outright stupid. I also agree that despite being claiming to be an Atheist..I am a bit biased against the Muslim community. It has some historical reason..I wont go into those.

    But I am afraid I am right at this point..As I said that I know 20 crore Muslims are not traitors otherwise we will be having a civil war right now. **But** as you would agree that they have got people in their community who support this kind of violence and ofcourse, I agree that the attitute of VHP and the Modi adds more to the their insecurity. But that doesn't justify their bombing out innocent people.

    Anyway the incident I mentioned was not a one off incident I can tell you many such incidents.

    If there is a country in India where killing in the name of religion should be taken seriously then it is India. Dont ask me why, you must be knowing.

    Btw, naxalite violence is different you might find it convienient to generalize all kind of violence, but it is very different from terrorist violence. Agreed they kill people, but in an war against the state killing of police and army can be justified..but not of civlians.

    Anyway said a lot :), whatever be my shortcomings I never walk away from criticism and speaking my mind..

  7. I have a lot to disagree with this post, G3.

    1) On combating hunger, malnutrition, lack of good health etc., being more important than combating terror.

    You're very, very wrong there.

    You take a very "communist" line in theorising that its because it affects "the reader and those who can buy the products advertised in the media, can be victims of terror", that it gets headlines.

    No, it grabs headlines because normal people, people who wish to live, to better their lives and others are cut down. It might be someone on their way to work, out to get medicine to their sick kith and kin, or a poor worker out to earn his daily wages.

    Combating Terrorism is more important because it denies a person the right to live (for whatever propaganda they have) - and most importantly its another man doing that.

    Think of the outrage that would occur if someone were to reintroduce/champion slavery or bonded labour.

    Then again why only one group of terror. Why the obsession with Al Qaeda and their LeT variants. Why not the Naxals?

    Because most, if not ALL of the media is Left-Leaning. And any one claiming to work for "secularism", "social causes", "social equity" will be treated with a lot of sympathy irrespective of their deeds.

    And Media is the #1 Opinion-maker.

    And it doesnt have to do with the Naxals attacking or not attacking the cities. Naxals wont attack, yet, because they are using Mao's strategy of claiming the rural hinterland first.
    (It could be Mao's lieutant's as well, just attributed to Mao. A recent book reveals what a coward and crook the Man was. We all knew he was a mass-murderer of course)

    3)"PS : If I had been born a muslim, would I away get away with 250 posts with not even one condemning Terrorism? I wonder."

    If a Hindu says "Narendra Modi wasnt solely responsible for Gujurat riots" or "Hindus were also killed during the riots"

    Is he likely to be let-off without being branded a BJP/Hindutva activist?

    or, If people can be called "Pak-baiters" b'cos of their movies, why doesnt SRK get called a Hindu baiter by expressly using the name Raghavan(another version of Ram, of course) for a terrorist?

    g3, I dont think anyone would really have asked for post condemning terrorism from you. All that blogging and bonding with people, has I think convinced most peeps of you being a good person and hence having the same thoughts as the any sane/good person would on terrorists.

    oh btw, congrats on the 250.

  8. modi doesnt justify the bombings.
    and godhra doesnt justify what happened with Modi as the leader.
    but naxalities in my mind are terrorists too.

    and hopefully i will write a post soon, on the seriousness of the issue,with data.

    btw left you a rediff link

  9. bangaloreguy
    i am not saying the terror should be in the back pages, or that they dont matter. but issues like hunger, maternal mortality and neonatal mortality also kill people. And these are PREVENTABLE deaths. and i dont think they deserve the kind of media treatment they are getting now.

    2.well i am not sure.

    3.i remember your comment ,when i wrote on kashmiri pandits. I think it went along the lines of "Didnt expect this from you".

    Thanks:) and i know your birthday is approaching, advanced birthday wishes.

  10. :-D

    Sry g3. a penchant for writing loong comments! :-D

  11. bangaloreguy, no probs:)
    they were on the topic.

    anyway even i write loooong comments:)

  12. WD,

    Hope your raising of naxal violence hasn't got anything to my 5-Tag :-)..

    I know a comment space isn't enough to tell what I think. But you see, there are places in the country where the government has badly failed the people..people are repressed, and unfortunately that thing doesn't even makes it to the media or anywhere...
    I know that violence is not the solution, but sometimes for the poor and weak it is the only one, coz no one is hearing their voice.

    Naxalism started this way, remember in 70's it was fashionable to be communist/socialist. people from that generation went to these villages and showed them a path..correct or not its upto you to judge..

    Now its fashionable to be a socialite, but these people are still poor and repressed..Naxalism is nothing but a repressed portion of society asserting themselves..

  13. spark no it doesnt has anything to do with your 5 tag.
    i mentioned it in my "Myths" post. an article I read in outlook made me change my view on naxalities.

    and i emphatise with the cause of socialism but dont emphatise with naxal violence.

    after all, if some muslims emphatised with the palestine issue, that wouldnt mean the terror attacks on the Isrl. govt would be ok as long as its not agst the public.

  14. prasad, well i agree with you, and thats why the safe is in quotes. :)

  15. :-) WD,

    If an attack is carried out by a muslim against the Israel govt and not the civilian population then I wont call it a terror attack in the first place.

    The definition of terrorism has been modified conveninently to mean that any armed opposition of the goverment is labelled as such..But for me as long as civilians aren't deliberately targeted I dont call it terrorism..

  16. well spark i do:)

    and btw when these terror organisations which operate agst only govt , indulge in drug traf.
    do u think its ok?

  17. Cant see any of the quotes on the comments. Must be an issue with blogger.

    Well, we can agree to disagree on the attention terror gets. IMO, the right to live is the highest among all rights (on par with freedom of expression), and that being denied cruelly is a terrible thing.

    Terrorism is preventable as well, g3. With the right medicine.

    On Naxal and sympathy. I'm more than sure.

    I dont quite remember what your post on Kashmiri Pandits was, or what I said on it, sorry! :-D

    Yep, my brithday is coming on like a freight train. Thanks for the wishes. I already hate it that in a few days I'll have to tell anyone I'm 24. Getting Old! :-|

  18. Spark,

    The Naxal leaders dont live in penury. They're from comfy homes - they have nothing to blame society for. In fact society has quite a bit to blame them for.

    They kill people who disobey their dictats, inform the police or work for the betterment of the people. It is in their interest to keep poverty going. Any comrade who gives up Naxalism lives under the fear of the bullet.

    In a country of a billion there are enough causes for twisted minds to attribute for their motivation to kill.

    No reason can justify killing people - excluding heinous crimes, and only if the law deems it fit, or if it ends up saving a lot more lives.

  19. bangaloreguy i think i made it clear, that terrorism is an issue.

    the link to my post on kashmiri pandits in o3
    and your comment
    "(oh btw, I was surprised that you wrote on the kashmiri hindus) "
    "no, gaya, i am surprised that you wrote on the pandits, specifically. "

    24 is old, than what about 31

  20. Spark,

    just so you know a lot of the Indian economy is government controlled. And by extension can be termed the Government.

    So I suppose killing bank, insurance, postal employees, employees in say things like irrigation, health or the myriad state departments are okay according to you?

    They're not. Neither is aggression against the government. Not in a democracy.

  21. agree with bangaloreguy, on that spark:)
    though i am including the govt and police too.

    after all i am not going to say ok if naxals kill the ministers but not ok if LeT kills the ministers.

  22. well bye for the day.

    wont be blogging much tommorrow.
    hanumath jayanthi:)

  23. umm g3, maybe there's some confusion.

    I acknowledge that you have the same perception on terror, but we differ on the means to tackle it and the media coverage it gets.

    My comment on it being preventable as well was because of your emphasis on the same for abominable health conditions in parts of our country! :-D

    and the Pandits thingy. Gosh! its a year old. you remember that? Must say your memory is phenomenal then.
    I do see that I apologised in that post later-on as well.

    And that should make this a second post on terrorism, no? :-P

    The context I meant earlier on this post re point #2 was that even if you professed to be Muslim and blogged the same, I dont think anyone would have given a hoot that you havent posted on terrorism.

    anyway, it wouldnt have matter to me at least. Apart from plenty of leg-pullin on burqha's and stuff! :-D

    and on 24 v 31, well hey, at 31 you're already used to being old! :-P j/k.

  24. g'nite.

    And a happy, safe New Year to you, in advance!

  25. Hi @wd,
    Ya the recent happenings are scaring the day lights outta everyone ! Chennai is safe for the moment ... dunno if it surpasses blore to take over as the IT Major..they might drop a bomb or two oever here too ...

  26. bangaloreguy, that the PREVENTABLE was because i had written about them earlier and the response would be something like its not preventable so its ok if a woman dies every 5 minutes from childbirth (i can give the o3 links:D) so i had mentioned them.
    i obviously agree that terrorism is preventable.
    better intelligence to start with. and more interaction from the police with the community at the local level.

    on the pandit thing, well it did hurt me a lot, so i remember:D

    after all the suprise wasnt because i hadnt spoken on issues earlier.
    surely when i wrote the one on delhi riots, it would mean that i would write on Pandits too..

    but i think while you were frank, perhaps there were some who were equally suprised but didnt voice it:)

    on 31 , ouch :))

  27. well Ice, i agree with Prasad..

    and the safety for me is just an illusion. just safe from terrorism doesnt mean safe from everything else..

  28. Safety - a state of mind ??

  29. will reply the unanswered comments tommorrow:)

  30. Well WD & BG,

    Drug pedalling is wrong whoever does it. By civilian I mean anyone who is not in the armed forces, even if he is an government employee. But I think targetting ministers in an insurgency is not terrorism.

    Its important to distinguish the mindless terrorism in the name of god from an indegenous insurgency as there is an attempt to label all the armed struggle as terrorism.

  31. g3,

    I agree on the preventable thingy.

    on the pandit thingy, I *think* I must have said it the context of your comments elsewhere, not specifically on your posting on issues and stuff.

    (rider: I dont even remember the post or my comments, and its been more than a year, so I can only surmise why I must have said what I did)

    what abt the Delhi riots? :-/

    as for me being frank, hey I'm always frank!

  32. Spark,

    Armed struggle against agressors like the British is acceptable. Armed struggle where you dont have recourse to any means but that, and where the State is draconian is acceptable.

    Armed struggle in a country that gives you the freedom of the ballot, of speech, religion, and a host of others, which has a fairly vigilant media, an activist judiciary, is pure terrorism.

    Someone can claim they are killing to represent the claims of whatever people or cause, but ALL they're doing is killing mindlessly.

    And that is being a terrorist. Period.

    How many people did the Narmada valley project displace? Did they take up the arms? No. They're fighting legal battles, winning some, losing some. But they're fighting, and their fight (against the dam) is legitimate, even if one disagree with their views, at times.

    Did people who did not want to lose the Silent valley rise in Arms against the state? No. They found means that worked - without going the terrorist route. They could have couldnt they? Why did they not do it? Because violence in a state that listens to you is not the answer. Sure some medium doesnt work, but others do.

    As I said before, in a country with such a diverse populace of ours and a population of 1 billion, its easy to attribute a cause because someone wants to kill. It just shows that the person wants to kill and nothing more.

  33. Wise Donkey,

    totally different perspective... hmmmm...use to get calls if "something" happens...

  34. iceeye
    well terrorism is not the only threat to safety, hence mentioned safety is a state of mind

    i have quite a decent recollection, and in fact had asked you for some links on Kashmiri Pandits, but you forgot about it. and then later after ur comment when i reminded you, you went and checked and then apologised.
    when i had asked for links, i dont see why it should have suprised u. but since you say, you dont remember much about it, well its futile to argue on it.
    (the delhi riots because it was anti congress post)

    i pointed it out merely to illustrate that bloggers are give a sterotype and their posts a sterotype.

    and if i had been a muslim, i am not that sure that you wouldnt question me on terrorism. and argue, why dont you write about terrorism when you write about other issues.

    spark, naxals too are in drug traff. just like other terrorist orgns, which may not aim at civilian targets.

  35. g3,

    I dont recall being asked for links Kashmiri Pandits and me not giving them out. If I remember right I must have pointed to Kashmir Herald and a couple of such newspaper sites(forgotten them).

    "but since you say, you dont remember much about it, well its futile to argue on it."

    Yes, yes, yes, its futile! :-D

    and to clarify, what I said earlier -

    If you were muslim, I wouldnt be shouting out loud for you to write a post on terrorism, - its your blog after all. At best I might (hv) asked you about your opinion on it - or maybe not even that.

  36. bangaloreguy
    # re: The journey continues 1/19/2005 5:56 PM gayathri
    wgaf if u recollect i had repeatedly asked for links related to kashmiri pandits, even in ur blog.

    u may be suprised that i happen to care for people, but nothing new in it.

    # re: The journey continues 1/19/2005 6:30 PM wgaf
    no, gaya, i am surprised that you wrote on the pandits, specifically.

    im sorry, my memory of blogs is very superficial. more so, if they are mine!

    # re: The journey continues 1/19/2005 6:36 PM wgaf
    right(checked back on my blogs), gaya, my apologies to you.

    the bold mine.
    hmmm if i had been a muslim well you would know best what you would comment of course:D

  37. yep yep saw that. I still remember pointing you to those sites, although I couldnt be bothered to look up where I did that.

    I apologised for the "stereotyping" not for not giving you the links.

  38. wgaf, its just funny to see you argue, even when you dont remember:))

    well you did give me the links, but after your comment. not before.
    otherwise do you think you would have not refuted me when i pointed out you didnt give the links? when you are memory would have been more fresher:)


    you said checked back (now would you say that for sterotyping or for asking links:)
    when you cant remeber now, you think you wouldnt have made a mistake, so if i had said i had asked u links but you didnt give, do you think you would have just ignored:))

    anyway you gave me the links much later
    # re: Hungersite 1/31/2005 7:33 PM wgaf

    kashmiri pandits and links.

    generally i remember the location of comments in my blogs, but i dont know where i asked and if my comment still exists in your blog.
    but you had checked that i had asked and apologised for that too.:)

  40. and while hunting for that question came across this from your post
    I am amazed that none of our vigilantes.. gayathri,terrific,rage et al (to name a few) have not commented on this

    and this is the opening line of your post. when you write this, sorry but i cant help thinking if i had been a muslim, you would have involved that.

    in fact in another post of yours, you went to the extent of saying
    No my implication was that you were closely associated with muslims - by whatever means. Neighbours, friends relatives, whatever.
    12/12/2004 8:23 PM | wgaf

    you seem very strongly to me like someone who has a close association with Muslims.

    And you seem to have decided, for whatever reason, that criticising Muslims, or our governments actions towards the majority Hindus is not to be done forever.

    Well, I would not comment any further. It just seems you are decided not to hold forth on them
    11/27/2004 11:35 PM | wgaf

    and unfortunately you or o3 deleted my comment , which gave your response.
    it was quite long but the gist of it was its Tough being a Hindu in India. (Yes I wrote Hindu not Muslim. But just wrote about all Hindus)

    when I wrote the Muslim line in this post, I had you very much in mind. From my blogging experience, you are the only one who has sterotyped me more than once.

    If for writing a line for Hindu women, I could be termed as "closely associated with Muslims" i shudder to think what you would have written if I had written that line as a Muslim.

  41. Ok,

    Here's what I dint remember - those specific instances of you writing a post on pandits and my response to that. That has been fairly rectified by the links.

    On the post that you allude to - I mention rage and terrific as well - So, why not infer that I'm putting you on the side of the Hindu right - since its fairly obvious that's where rage would stand(in that matter)?
    (and then the question - what if you were a Muslim and I put you on the side of the Hindu right?)

    I'm sorry if you feel I have stereotyped you more than once. I haven't.

    And the comments you mention (on the being a Hindu post) you've picked and chosen the ones that buttress your argument.
    I had clarified back then of what I meant - and that comment still exists there - as do your subsequent responses.

    Funnily enuf, you've apologised on that same post saying you mistook me. And I had thought things were clear, after that. I do not know what to make of it in the light of what you say now.

  42. Bangaloreguy, if you go thru everything, its obvious that you try to fit in to a mould. whatever the reasons, whatever the mould.

    the facts speaks for themselves, and its futile to explain the obvious but for the last time i will.

    there was no need to express suprise over my post on kashmiri pandits.

    there was especially no need since i had asked you for links and you had forgotten (its ok to forget, but then there was no need to express suprise in my view point)

    there was no need to mention now that you had given links after i had asked when you hadnt.(you gave the links quite some time after i pointed it out to you that i had asked for the links. thats fine, but its irritating to find you claiming otherwise when that wasnt the case .thankfully o3 hasnt deleted them.)

    there was no need and no basis to assume that i would be close to muslims, when i speak about Hindu women or lower caste hindus.

    there was no need to declare me a vigilante, irrespective of who you grouped me with.

    i apologised, it was for equating you with rage in my Mind.

    the first comment from me has been deleted in the Hindu post.
    you say "Gaythri,
    you seem very strongly to me like someone who has a close association with Muslims.
    And you seem to have decided, for whatever reason, that criticising Muslims, or our governments actions towards the majority Hindus is not to be done forever.
    Well, I would not comment any further. It just seems you are decided not to hold forth on them
    11/27/2004 11:35 PM | wgaf "
    now there isnt a comment before that, since your comment was a reply to my comment and its obvious its being deleted..

    btw we went over the deleted comment earlier too, and i think you said it would have been o3, and you didnt question me, then on whether there was a comment , which had been deleted.


Have a Great Day!