I guess at 76 cancer doesn't bother anyone, while we see millions of kids and youngsters suffering from the dreaded disease. 76 is the age to welcome it and say you cant do anything more to me than the most eventual called ageing
Re: @ 76 it doesn't bother...
by Titto Augustine on Jun 08, 2012 01:16 AM
Austin, everybody normally would wish for living long and healthy. Being aged doesn’t mean that the person should expect a death/deadly factor anytime.
Re: Re: @ 76 it doesn't bother...
by Village Boy on Jun 09, 2012 01:12 PM
Austin has a point, if the cancer atttacks a person who is in mid 30s and has wife, kids and parents to look after - situation is different.
Re: Re: Re: @ 76 it doesn't bother...
by Ramesh M on Jun 10, 2012 08:06 PM
hey you gavaar (village boy), augustine too has a point. Getting cancer at age 76 is not BETTER than getting it at the age 36. You m0r.0n. A disease is a disease at any age. Why do you want to compare it and say that its WELCOME at one age (like that fellow austin said)and NOT welcome at another age (like you said)...1mbec1les!
Hats off to you Raman. I really admire your attitude and approach towards this dreaded disease. From your article I can see that you are an incurable optimist. I agree with your doctor that its your disposition and not the therapy that has driven the cancer out of your system.
Dependence on others is very bad, especially if one has lived independently in thoughts and actions, never once believing that you would have to be dependent on others. Others would not demand anything in return. You feel bad because you dont have anything to give. You never had. Thats why you lived independently. Hope Mr Raman has a steady pension, which he can use to remain independent.
Mr Raman has been quite forthwith in his writings regarding operations of RAW and analysis of events. His articles on rediff were quite a read.
