[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: articles about human rights violations and other things
My replies to various posts in one:
Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
> Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
> >While you make some good points in the post, I have to note one thing here.
> >While the above statement is quite correct (ie, "most human rights etc"). I
> >should point out that in Sri Lanka the conflict is also of a religious nature.
> >While the problem may have started off as a political one, it has assumed a
> >religious dimension also, and is in fact a key factor now.
>
> Agreed. Now, let's look at what religions are involved - Hindus and
> Buddhists, for the most part. We can agree on this point, I hope, right?
>
> Now here's where it gets tricky - recall that there are people who
> claim that Buddhists are in fact Hindus. So, the entire conflict,
> according to them, would be Hindu versus Hindu. So, all human rights
> violations would be against the Hindus.
Does "there are people" include Ajay Shah? Even if it did, I'd like to know if
Ajay Shah will accept any articles to be posted on srh, which are purely about
Buddhism? I don't think he will. If Ajay Shah disagrees with me here, can he
voice his opinion on this statement, viz "Buddhists are Hindus.."?
If as I think, articles purely on Buddhism won't be allowed, then there is no
problem.
> Therefore, using this logic, almost every article about the Sri Lankan
> conflict should be allowed on soc.religion.hindu. Do you really want
> that? I know you suggested trimming the articles down to their bare
> essentials, but this still doesn't solve the underlying problem.
About the lingam + lingayat issue:
Vivek wrote:
>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.
Well, if you look around you'll find that not everyone is like you either. OK,
if you say there were no innuendos in the statement, fine. However, my point
was that I have seen you make statements about people/philosophies you _don't_
agree with and on quite a few occassions some of them seemed to contain
innuendos. That quite naturally made me suspicious.
>You and sns made some cowardly statements, and when I asked for proof,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
?!
>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.
There seems to have been no lack of response from my side. That was exactly my
point about asking the question on Ginsberg. That would have been
"non-traditional" too.
>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?
All right. However, remember that no-one even attempted to answer my concerns
about the talk group.
>Gosh, if only you would have the courtesy to treat my statements
>accurately, rather than trying to place your own spin on them. If you
>and sns are so offended by the presence of gay people who claim to
>worship Shiva in lingam form that you need to try to smear me for
>mentioning their existence, I feel sorry for you.
Huh, I don't care who worships shiva or doesn't. I explained why my suspicions
were aroused.
>If you don't wish to be specific, then it goes to show that your point
>isn't to actually do anything productive, but to conduct a campaign of
>lies by suggesting that your opponent said things which he did
>not. When proof is offered, you still don't seem to want it, so I can
>only conclude that you are intentionally being untruthful.
The "innuendo" I was referring to was the "lingam worshipping homosexual
lingayats" or something like that. As I said I may have got the exact phrase
wrong. I think that's what you said.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
