> IN ADDITION TO THE PREVIOUS MAIL WHICH PROVES MY CLAIMS:

***
JUST CHECKED: THE NUNGU RESUME ON RHIZOME HAS BEEN CHANGED BY BEA. NOW IT ONLY LISTS HER AS THE NUNGU MEMBER AND NOT ME AND HER AS IT DID PREVIOUSLY. CAN RHIZOME DIG OUT THE DATE OF THIS UPDATE? THAT WOULD EXPOSE THE ATTEMPT AT COVER UP. I HAVE A COPY OF THE PREVIOUS RESUME POSTED ON RHIZOME - WHICH I SAVED WHEN I DISCOVERED THIS ISSUE. I SHALL SEND IT AS PROOF IN MY NEXT MAIL.
***

Or, simply ask Bea when she updated this resume. I am hoping that she will not lie.

Also she might be asked to submit the previous nungu resume and that will clearly show that it mentions me and her alone.

Mukul the person claiming to be the past/ present and future collaborator of nungu is really her boyfriend. Even he has gotten confused that nungu = bea {in a digital manefestation}. He is thus repeating his wows to Bea, for nungu also. That’s really sweet of him. Only, he doesn’t realize that he is supporting a wrong cause.

I and only I (besides bea) have been mentioned as a nungu member since the defunct first version. Mukul and Laura should wonder why this privilege was never offered to them if they have been collaborators throughout. They do not find a mention in the new resume as well.

More lies will only work against Bea. Boyfriends and close pals of Bea should note this.

Is it ethical to mention boyfriends, pets, dependent employees, deceased family members etc as collaborators just to make it seem like nungu is a collective?

Who were the collective members when the grant application was made? Can they write to this list and reveal their mysterious identities? Why does the proposal not mention them? Are they that insignificant? Why is Bea the only grant beneficiary mentioned in the proposal? Do the other collective members want none of it? Why do they want to remain anonymous collaborators who want to work for free even when a grant is being awarded?

Mr. Mark Tribe, you really need to look into this rather than just take Bea's word for it.


-vishal