Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z+ From: sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: talk.politics.south-asia CALL FOR DISCUSSION Message-ID: Date: 21 Feb 90 13:12:11 GMT References: <9002210527.AA07743@saturn.ads.com> Organization: Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 15 In-Reply-To: <9002210527.AA07743@saturn.ads.com> Kent Paul Dolan writes: > Why Nepal but not Tibet? Have you consigned a once free people to > perpetual servitude? I sympathize with the Tibetans, and of course they would be welcome on such a group; listing Tibet with de facto nations, though, is making a strong political statement at the outset! But I see your point---the current charter excludes discussions on Tibetan affairs vis a vis China. If there's enough demand we could expand the charter to include such discussions. Is this a good idea, people? Sudheer. ---------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET