[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <31EBE102.7A1E@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Very typical of what? I'm not sure what you're talking about, because
>> I do not recall any reference to a "lingayat homosexual" or any such
>> by anyone.
>
>The "typical" referred to Vivek's general innuendos against personalities he
>does not like. Sorry for the confusion.
You are causing the confusion, and you're making it worse
(intentionally?). There were no "innuendos" in that statement. I
personally know some people who match the description. If that offends
you or if you find that to be an offensive statement, I suggest you
look around and find that not everyone is exactly like you.
>As for "lingayat ...", it was admitted by Mr Vivek Pai himself (in srh today).
"admitted" - a load of crap, if I ever saw one.
You and sns made some cowardly statements, and when I asked for proof,
you've now declared some sort of victory. However, you have proved
nothing. I said that I have definitely made reference to a group of
people who worship Shiva in lingam form. Some of them also happen to
be quite non-traditional, and I want to know whether or not you
consider them to be Hindus. After all, that was the point of sns's
whiny attack, was it not?
Given that sns raised this point, I find his sudden lack of response
(and yours, for that matter) to be telling - it reeks of a smear job,
and nothing more.
>> >hindu or not (though the mind boggles at such a possibility). However, I am
>> >against the RFD for other reasons I have already cited, for which I
>> >received no satisfactory answers.
[...]
>
>Please refer the archives, if you never read my replies in srh. Just a
>thought. I am not keen on reposting my entire objections and answers to them
>and the counter objections to them each time.
In other words, you received answers, but you just didn't like
them. Why not just say that rather than implying that they went
unanswered?
-Vivek
