[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: superstitions
:From jvyas@ritz.mordor.com Wed Nov 16 00:46:55 1994
:To: manish (Manish Tandon)
:Subject: Re: superstitions
:Cc: editor@rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu
:
:In article <39uh27$nfs@ucunix.san.uc.edu> you wrote:
:
:: My point was, if you consider name calling as something bad and
:: that my act in question here qualified for such,
:
:That indeed may be your point but what does it have to anything _I_ said?
Very smart aren't we?
The point (again for the understanding impared) is, *you* (and others)
repeatedly tried (and are still trying and still failing!) to gain unfair
advantage over _me_ in what is meant to be an intellatual discussion by
trying to corner me with baseless charges of name calling when you _all_
are at least equally guilty of the same act.
No, you did not just _innocently_ slipped the name calling part in your
message for no reason as you are now claiming since the whole thing has
boomranged on your face.
:: why did you participated in it???
:
:I said you started the name calling in this thread.
I have already explained why you did that. Take a course in ethics
along with that elementry logic course.
:Is this true or false?
:Answer my question (or else at least tell me you won't answer it.)
How many times do you want me to answer your same dumb Q??
this is what I have already said.
|> PS. I maintain my views about Vivekananda as is because calling a spade
|> a spade is not name calling to me.
:Then we'll move on to the next topic.
So I hope.
Btw, since it appears that you do consider that as name calling,
my Q. regarding why you participated in it remains open.
:: In another place you said, "why are you carrying my argument any
:: further than I've carried it".
::
:: Sorry to tell you that if you make statements on a public forum,
:: people are going to test your logic on which you base your statements
:: and as it so happened, your logic was wrong.
:
:But it was YOUR logic. YOU assumed I thought in a certain way without
:bothering to ask me.
Wrong.
1. It was your logic/rationale. There is no reason for me to evaluate
the logic of my own statements.
2. There is no reason why I should seek multiple clarifications on
some trivial thing from your highness <G>.
:: You are _not_ above law as you might think.
:
:Oh dear, the topic is changing again.
"Oh dear"!!! what a pleasant change in the tone.
:You're making me dizzy <G>. Ok, what law do I think I'm above?
You objected to my evaluating *your* logic which is considered above
law on a public forum like this. If that makes you dizzy, then so be it.
Take an asprin or two.
:-- Jaldhar
