User talk:LordSimonofShropshire/archive 2

User talk:LordSuryaofShropshire

Darshan

Darshan: You're right of course, I was a bit general there. Thanks! timl

Others

Mind reviewing Auto rickshaw ?? - Kesava, 04:52, Apr 16 2004 (UTC)

---

aapni ki ITrans byabohaar kore baanglaa likhte chaan ?

---

Apaatoto Itrans-er theke Unicode bhittik kono editor byaabohaar korle bhaalo. Aaapni Windows byobohaar koren - naaki GNU/Linux ? -Sayamindu

---

Windows XP byaabohaar korle aapni beshir bhaag prograam-ei baanglaa byaabohaar korte paarben. aapnaake prothome MuktiNarrow [1] font-Ti download kore bzip2 support kore emon kono program die sheTaake install korun. Taarpore aamaay jaanben aapni Bangla Wikipedia [2] porte paarchhen kinaa. -Sayamindu

Hinduism featured article

Surya - I'm the one who picks the article for the main page. Tomorrow's feature will be Hinduism. I normally don't let people know in advance because I like it to be a surprise, but since you seem to care about the article so much, I thought I'd let you know in advance (this is the first time I've ever done that). →Raul654 17:13, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Bravo!कुक्कुरोवाच

Other Wikipedias?

Hello, Surya. I don't see a Hindi or Urdu equivalent on your Userpage. I hope you are part of them just the same. You can show them using [[hi: ... See my page for an example. (One of my now dead aunts taught for about 40 years in Christian schools in India and Sikkim, so I'm not totally unfamiliar with those languages. And my workmate who runs the firm's computers speaks several of them too.) Robin Patterson 05:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Formatting

Why I took a particular interest in your pages was your New User Log comment about capitalisation in section headings. Sorry, you're in a distinct minority there: even the law publishing business where I work has the same style as Wikipedia. The bolding or italics and line-spacing do enough to jazz up the heading; capitals would just make it harder to read. Kind regards Robin Patterson 05:41, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hindi Wikipedia

Looking at your contributions makes me feel that you would be a great contributor for the Hindi Wikipedia. It needs help of people like you. Please consider contributing to it. --Hemanshu 14:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Hinduism

Thanks.Andries 21:00, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Reverted

Hi, I reverted your last bout of edits on Hinduism, not because I hated them, but because most of the article got lost somewhere along the way. ;) Markalexander100 21:55, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry,we're overlapping now! I'll leave you to it. ;) Markalexander100 22:04, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming Policy Poll

Nicely put. I had misgivings about mobocracy regarding giving offense to natives, but I think your point is perhaps stronger. older ≠ wiser 17:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hindutva

You are both being rude and silly. I don't have a strong opinion about hindutva because I know almost nothing about it. I am trying to learn more. The rudeness and hysteria which you (an otherwise superb editor, I might ad) apply to this subject makes it explicitly obvious that it is a dangerous place for you to be. Perhaps I was excessive in reccomending you to depart from the page, but if you were to follow your own advice, that is exactly what you would do. If you want to contribute to the page, thats great, but check your POV at the door. If we are going to discuss this (or anything else) in a manner worth our respective energies emotionalism and misunderstanding need to be minimized, and neutrality and factually accuracy need to be harmoniously shared amongst us. Sam Spade 00:29, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is hot air, and I'm not going to waste more time with it. Your a good writer, and glad you are here, but discussion of NPOV is clearly not your strong suit, and I havn't the patience to debate your blindness. Sam Spade 01:55, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the support -- and welcome fresch perspective -- on the talk page for the JC article, Slrubenstein

British East India Company

I too feel the article would be better with a few more images. But, I am hard pressed to find any more in the public domain. If you could find any, please feel free to add them. Cheers Chancemill 13:55, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)

bhagavadgita

hmmm. always wondered who did that page. very nice job. "I would really like to make the Gita page, especially, a much more coherent one." i've been to your user page and i would say that, over time, the Bhagavadgita page will become more coherent ;-) bobert_wi

Photo of u?

• Is this your photo?
• Are you switching colleges?

Nichalp 20:52, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Personalities

It might not be a bad idea to focus on what someone says and does rather than make judgements about the person themselves. For instance, what KRS said about the use of the term 'idol' does not necessarily make her "conservative" in any sense (Talk:Hinduism); in fact, whether she's conservative or liberal is actually irrelevant - the issue is the article on Hinduism, the right terms to use there, and what you and she think. Similarly (and this is why I'm mentioning this at all), what I said on Talk:Sanskrit (and the changes I did to Sanskrit) does not make me a follower of Romila Thapar (Talk:Sanskrit). Hope I'm not way out of my line here. And feel free to delete this. Ambarish Talk 07:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, LordSurya. I should point out that I value your contributions to Hinduism-related pages, although I may not agree with all of them. In the case of Thapar, I strongly condemn her brand of scholarship; since you addressed both of us simultaneously, it was confusing, and I lost interest in pursuing that discussion. Ambarish Talk 02:03, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Hindu categorization?

Do you folks over at Hinduism have a category format for dealing with philosophical concepts? I was thinking about doing this for ātman, just because I was there replying to your comment and I've been trying to make sure the Buddhist cats are in order. I was thinking we need something like "Philosophical concepts in Buddhism", but I also thought it would be weird to apply that to Atman in the absence of a corresponding Hindu philosophy tag, and I was wondering if there was something like that in the works, and I figured you'd know if anybody would. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:18, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

May be [[Category:sects of Hinduism]] and [[Category:schools of Hinduism]]  ? Andries 20:57, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, I'm looking to classify ideas. The ideal solution would be to have Category:Indian philosophical concepts, and then have Category:Buddhist philosophical concepts and Category:Hindu philosophical concets be subcats, but use the general Indian cat for shared terms like ātman. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where to post this, but I guess I'll just do it here ; ) My problem, for instance, with "atman" is that it is clearly a Hindu concept. Buddhist rebuttals of a concept don't serve as definitions of Atman. The Atman article, for instance, is not really a shared idea and should go into Hindu philosophical concepts or whatever. When I mean it's not shared is that Buddhism hasn't supplied new meaning to Atman but only dealt with it in a reactionary fashion. Something like karma, dharma, or nirvana, for instance, these concepts are certainly shared and each 'group' of religions has informed that term with new meaning, i.e. in order to understand 'karma' one would have to intelligently reference its Hindu, Buddhist, even Jain and Sikh, contexts. In that case, one might safely have general category articles for karma (ex.) under Indian concepts and further elucidations under each religious or sectarian group. --LordSuryaofShropshire 22:22, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

I thought you might say something like that. ::grin:: I don't think you're using "reactionary" correctly, by the way; reactionary in English has a conservative connotation, and Buddhism in this regard is playing the--what's the value-neutral opposite of "conservative"? (Obviously "liberal" doesn't serve in this context)--at any rate, Buddhism is in the proactive position. And certainly Buddhism has brought a whole new range of meanings to bear on the term. Perhaps by "reactionary" you simply mean they don't like it, which is perfectly true, but also perfectly without bearing on its status as an important term and concept in both Buddhist and Hindu philosophical discourse.

And while it's not a shared idea in the sense that Hindus and Buddhists have different ideas about it, it is certainly a shared term which has enough overlap in terms of meaning that the two can in fact disagree over it. Can you argue that ātman is not a topic in Buddhist philosophy? The point is not the quality of the philosophizing which is done, on which point we can doubtless agree to disagree, but whether the term and concept(s) "Atman" figure in (a) Buddhist and (b) Hindu thought. At any rate, my concern here isn't to enter into a debate regarded Buddhist-Hindu polemics, but simply to query whether you're aware of existing plans regarding a categorization scheme to deal with Hindu concepts. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:58, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'm quite aware of the term "reactionary" and used it fully aware of its denotative ramifications in the discussion.  ;) My last word on the subject is that debates on the validity of a term do not seem to make that term a "Buddhist concept" but rather a concept with which Buddhists deal. The concept itself is Hindu/Vedic/Vedantic/etc. But yes, I am now aware of the plan and its scope and intention seems excellent. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:02, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, in what sense do you mean "reactionary"? I don't see it. (Nor do I see the distinction between a "Buddhist concept" and a "concept with which Buddhists deal," but that may just be our differing tastes in epistemology. ;) ) -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 23:08, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In polemics and debate, etc. buddhists and hindus alike would utilize logic to prove the soundness of their metaphysical planks. When, for instance, an Upanishadic thinker, or a yogi, spoke of the Atman, a Buddhist retort would comprise many of the texts and understandings which you listed in the article (reference Atman). The inclusion of Atman in Buddhist texts does not make it a "Buddhist concept" but rather a Hindu concept to which Buddhists were reacting. For instance, would one term "shunyata" a Hindu concept? I doubt it. It's not believed in, Hindu thinkers never embraced it as part of the Vedic framework; and yet, numerous examples abound in which thinkers of nastika schools or other such derivative sects rebutted it, spoke of it at length, questioning its logical viability or having long dialectics 'disproving' it. It is not a Hindu concept, but rather a BUddhist concept with which Hindus dealt. In the same way, I feel Atman has nothing to do with Buddhism except as a foil off of which to argue their points. --LordSuryaofShropshire 23:47, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I think I see what you're getting. However, I would still caution that just because reaction is involved does not make one reactionary; to be a reactionary is to react reflexively, thoughtlessly; a carefully thought and argued rejoinder with an aim towards opening new possibilities is constructive criticism, not reactionism. The refutation of śūnyatā by Hindu thinkers may be important polemics, but it doesn't provide the undergirding for the development of any key aspects of Hinduism; the critique of ātman is the very foundation of Buddhism. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 00:36, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't need in-depth denotative explications of "reactionary." As I said, I know what it means. Also, you seem to favor a narrow and situation-specific usage of "reactionary" whereas I am using it in its most unencumbered sense. Regardless of all this, "shunyata" and reasoned denial of it seemed to have been the very fulcrum about which all of Adi Shankaracharya's initial explication of Advaita Vedanta hinged. Thus, I should say "shunyata" in the same sense is quite vital to Hindu metaphysics as witnessed in the Vedantic age. But no one would ever call "shunyata" a Hindu concept. In much the same manner, simply because much of nihilism uses "God" as part of its arguments against believing in divinity or divine cosmology, soteriology, etc. doesn't mean that "God" is a Nihilist concept. Now to call God a nihilist concept, or one of many nihilist concepts, is to confuse the furious philosophical interplay and dynamic of active discussion in thinking circles that required nihilists, or existentialists, or post-modernists, people like Bertrand Russell, et cetera to address God in a most thorough and often obsessive manner. It is the exact same with Buddhism and "atma"/"atman," in which Atman is not a Buddhist concept but, as you have been quite perspicacious in pointing out, one against which Buddhist placed themselves and in 'reaction' to they developed their theories, ideas, or transcendental meditations. --LordSuryaofShropshire 01:08, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Loyalites

I know its a hard question to ask you. Its about US vs (rest of the world). I want to know whose side you would take. Nichalp 18:19, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Religion in India

Have you ever seen this page? It's pretty friggin' weak. I just went through and fixed all the grammar mistakes and a couple obvious factual errors. You might want to take a look at it some time if you have a chance.

PS - I, too, am anxiously awaiting an answer to Nichalp's question. I am prepared to immediately begin organizing a "draft Lord Surya for president" campaign, but only -- repeat only -- if your answer is the former. - Nat Krause 15:32, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good to hear that we can count you on our side. As for the line, "Another possible cause is that clashes with Islamic and Hindu fundamentalists led to genocide or conversion," yeah, that's pretty questionable. I guess I was thinking that if by "clashes" we mean "conflicts of ideas" and by "genocide or conversion" we mean "conversion", then the statement is true with regard to Hindues. All in all, still very dicey. I just went and took out "fundamentalists" at least, since I have no idea what that is supposed to mean in this context. I wish we could get someone who knew a lot about the subject to write the decline of Buddhism in India article. I don't think I'm up to it. - Nat Krause 05:06, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[3]

Lets not keep repeating the same pattern. Please be respectful of others and minimize POV. Thank you for being a good writer, Sam [Spade] 05:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that you were placing POV in articles. Actually I think you've done extremely well at keeping your anti-hindutva POV out of the hindutva article. And you feeling insulted by me complaining about your insults... I'm not sure where to go with that. Comparing anybody to Nazism inspires both Godwin's law and strawman. I found the way you easilly made 1st the nazi analogy and then the KKK analogy quite unfortunate. The personal attacks against me and my concerns only served as a clarification that insult had been intended all along. This is not the place for that. You are a good writer, and I have seen (and copiously complimented) the massive contributions you have made to Hindu related articles. Your suggestion that I am somehow antagonistic towards you is quite unfounded. Freely review our interactions from when we first crossed paths on Hinduism, and you will see that I have consistantly complimented you, and that I and others have periodically been offput by a tendancy for haughtiness and POV in talk. I am not your enemy. Maybe we don't share politics, maybe we don't share editing or communication styles, but I think we do share a love for Hindu philosophy, Indian culture, and Sanatana Dharma. In the end we are here to do what is best for the encyclopedia, yes? Sam [Spade] 16:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Churchill's opinion of Ghandi

Hello LordSuryaofShropshire,

Thanks for modifying your commentary about Churchill's comment to the more neutral " For example, as a subject of the British Empire, Winston Churchill once derisively referred to Gandhi as a "brown fakir."....However I feel that the qualification 'as a subject of the British Empire' is;

1. unnecessary: The reason is this; this is a page about Ghandi, so why include information about Winston Churchill on it (namely that he was a subject of the British Empire)? There is a link to Churchill's page, so people can go there and find out for themselves that he was a British Empire subject.
2. has POV issues: I also think that the qualification 'as a subject of the British Empire', presents a POV about the truth-value of Churchill's opinion.

I also feel that 'derisively' and 'admiringly' are redundant adverbs. The fact that Churchull's view was derisory and Einstein's view was admiring is obvious from the quotes...readers don't need to be told; they can see that the quotes are 'derisive' or 'admiring' just by reading them.

Thinking it over, it may be better to omit Churchill's and Einstein's quotes altogether. The reason I say this is that, hundreds of world leaders had opinions about Ghandi. By presenting only two such opinions, the article is open to the criticism of selective quoting....

I would welcome your thoughts on my talk page Mercurius 06:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ghandi & Churchill

Hello and thanks for your detailed reply. I'm content to leave the 'British empire' qualifier on the page as you have written it, although I removed 'derisively' and 'admiringly'.

I agree with your first & third points, though I still feel that any 'context' about Churchill belongs on the Churchill page, not the Ghandi page. I understand your view that Churchill's vassalship provides relevant context to the reader, but one can still make the argument that it is presenting a POV about Churchill's opinion, and privileges Einstein's opinion as being more 'accurate' (like this: the truth-value of Churchill's opinion is compromised in some way by his allegience to the Crown, whereas, Einstein's opinion, being unqualified in the text, is presented as more value-free, neutral and unbiased..?). If it's relevant to qualify Churchill's opinion as a British Empire subject, why is it not relevant to mention that Albert Einstein was a German Jew living in America??? Or that they were both European males? Where do you draw the line... :0)

But we can agree to disagree;- let's not change it simply on my say-so. If, in the future, you find other people making edits & removing the 'British empire' qualifier, or asking you to remove it, you may want to reconsider...

Happy wikking! Mercurius 22:39, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fundamentalists

Let me present my point of view:

• The RSS, VHP and BD are the *major* causes of unrest as compared to Muslims and Christians.
• Attack on churches & mosques
• They are the largest and most infamous trouble mongers
• They killed Gandhi
• Well criticised in the media for their narrow mindedness.

¶ nichalp 20:19, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Before you label me of bigotry, I haven't reverted your edit, nor have I accused all Hindus of supporting them.

1. None of the Hindu groups are banned, whereas the most prominent Muslim grp SIMI is banned.
2. Nagaland demand for independence is based on the fact that Nagaland was in independent princely state before Indian independence. Infact North east India lacks development rather than attributing it to mainly Christian secessionist groups. This is the root cause of all independence movements globally.
3. If something is wrong, any media is bound to criticise the wrong doing.
4. Excesses attributed to the VHP and family, far exceed that of obscure Islamic groups.

---

I shall disect all your points here:

1. I did not respond to all your points as I had to quit for the day.
2. The media and the Supreme Court have largely contained the excesses comitted by the VHP, BD and RSS. If the two didn't play its part the Parivar would have run amok. It is unfair and biased of you to blame the Indian media of one-sidedness. SO WHAT if the Parivar is execrated by the media? And what reason do you hold against the media? I would say the US media is extremely one-sided, but the same doesn't hold sway here.
   • Bihar is a different case. Bihar holds the key swing votes in elections. Not all people are in dicey financial straights. Many Biharis resort to outlawed and illegal methods to amass great wealth. Widespread corruption in the state lines the pockets of government servants and other powers. Bihar is a plutocratic state. If people resort to getting rich through illegal means and get away with it, why would they seek independence?
   • Nagaland in return gets 1 solitary vote. Of course, their vote is as good as neglected. As a result, sucessive governments have ignored their pleadings. Nagaland's primary demand is not independence but territory from neighbouring states. In Nagaland, graduates are forced to hide their (faces and shame) as they are forced to take up menial jobs such as rikshaw cyclists.
     North east India faces alienation from India as none of the elected ministers ever get top ministerial berths. Second they rarely have any economy to speak about. Barring Sikkim and Assam none of the states have a developed tourism industry. No tourism means no interaction with outsiders. Do you also attribute the Bodos and ULFA to Christian groups? Clearly they have no links. Where are the jobs out there Surya?
     When a group from Arunachal Pradesh visited Bombay, many of them were asked if they were Chinese! Some even thought that AP was an independent country and wanted to know if a passport was needed to visit there. These people face alienation amongst their own countrymen, why won't they agitate? Nagaland was much more prosperous during its monarchy.
   • Punjab is prosperous. You know the history of Khalistan so I won't go into details. BUT THE SIKH MILITANTS were solely based in Punjab. They did not create mayhem in the rest of India. Infact, the only reason why the ordinary Sikhs rioted in the year before you were born was because Indira Gandhi violated the sanctity of the Golden Temple. Once Rajiv Gandhi took over, he handled the situation with a firm hand and nixed the problem for good. Not a bomb has exploded for the past 12 years in Punjab. Since the region is highly developed, not many takers are there for such movements anymore and has lost mass appeal.
   • A similar case with Tamil Nadu. Secessionist groups have long abandoned the demand for a greater Elam as Tamil Nadu has a strong economy.
3. I would like to know which developed region in the world has ever fought for independence, all active independence movements are fought due to neglect of the region as the primary cause. Language etc. comes later.
4. It is a well known fact that Chinese arm the militant groups and Al Quida finances northeast sucessionist groups. Source TOINS
5. I personally knew an accountant who had to submit the entire finanial accounts of ALL the Catholic Churches in West Bengal to LK Advani. The former government did keep a strict control over Church finances (perhaps on the behalf of the RSS?).
6. I can't comment on Zoramthanga problem & Christland as I need to refer to external articles. Perhaps you can provide me some fodder so that I may comment on the issue.
7. You have the obdurate tendancy of jumping the gun, so I asked you, as a preventive measure, to desist calling me a bigot or any of its allied meanings.
8. In short, the menace of the Parivar is omnipresent all over India and has the power to strike at will. Other groups are fragmented.

'They are the only groups known to issue dictums to governments and threaten the peace of neighbourhoods.'

To solve the problem of the Northeast, the government should start development of that region. Seal and patrol borders and also curb the finances of such groups. As soon as that starts, all movements will fizzle out.

---

Excesses attributed to the Parivar in recent history:

1. Destroying historical buildings and crosses in Goa.
2. Blackening the faces of convent principals in Bombay as they refuse to bow down to their demands.
3. Riots in various places
4. Rewriting of history textbooks (read the Parivar history books. They are disgusting)
5. Burning of Graham Staines
6. Should I go on...?

¶ nichalp 20:16, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

---

I don't know where you get your news reports from but where ever you do get it from, let me tell you it is terribly implausible. Let me tell you that I scrutinise the newspapers, watch 3 news channels daily and also check out news websites; and I have never ever heard the balderdash that you quote as gospel truth.

Next, I would like you to point out where in my article have I ever absolved Muslims and Christians of crimes. Neither have I indicted Hindus as you mentioned, only the Sangh Parivar. Please read my edits carefully next time.

The Parivar have become more active recently (1990s) therefore it is wrong to say that for centuries that Jews & ... The VHP have picketed all card shops in during the time of Valentines' Day. Why? because it is not part of Hindu culture! I was in Lucknow a few years back during the New Year. On 30 Dec, the Bajrang Dal issued a ditkat that nobody was to celebrate New Year's Day. Result was a really, really damped 2001 for me, even the cable TV was cut! Tolerance (even in Hindu majority areas)? I don't think so.

In short the Parivar is the most active religious group far exceeding other religion’s fundamentalism. This is an attested fact. I don’t think I have contradicted myself anywhere do I? ¶ nichalp 19:40, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

PEACE

One sided?

• Reasons why Graham Staines and his innocent sons were killed, Zoramthanga. You never cite your sources. After I checked them out on the net,I noticed that none of the sites were credible enough for you to attest to the fact. Cite your sources - credible sources.
  • All my sources are backed up and verified, that's why I told you my news sources.
• Your personal experience in India is too short to lay claims to being in the thick of action here.
• I haven't derided Hindus. You are the person who has made the mountain out of the molehill by equating all non Hindu fundamentalist actions with Hindu ones. I have stated, as always, the Parivar is the largest active religious group exceeding even other outlawed groups such as the Naxals as the chief mischief makers. Clearly you do not agree to the facts, but instead your self created fiction. Quit your razmataz.
• You have a anti Muslim bias, refusing to call a spade, "Islamic Terrorists bomb Bombay" but refuse to allow Hindu fundamentalists to be listed. When will you see that they are the leading cause of unrest?
• LeT, if you didn't know, is foreign based and funded. Name a home grown Muslim group capable enough of creating widespread mahem. Name any international Islamic terrorist groups which Indian Muslims have enlisted.
• Accusing Christians of destroying temples all over the country is another of your vilified campaigns. If it were true, myriad arrests would have been made.
• Again, you see me not critising Christain and Muslim groups. Please, what does it take to point out that I have never exonerated anyone.
• I have pieced together the larger part of the jigsaw puzzle, but clearly you don't get it.
• And finally if you don't believe me, why don't you conduct a poll (Open to Indian citizens) to determine which fundamentalist group poses the greatest threat to the secular fabric of our society?

THE PARIVAR IS THE COUNTRY'S LARGEST FUNDAMENTALIST GROUP.

• You certainly have the gall to accuse me not rationally approaching the issue. I asked you of cite your sources. You drew a blank. I called your bluff; nothing self-aggrandising about it.
  • Graham Staines did not coerce anyone to convert. Even if your point was valid; which is clearly not, why should a person be burnt alive for that? Why too were his innocent children?
  • Your speculating the causes of Staines dark side; so too Zoramthanga conversion issue. Obviously there’s very little proof to support your wayward theories. And please don’t quote obscure websites which could very well be covertly run by Parivar sympathisers.
  • Obviously I listed the excess by the Parivar. You clearly beat around the bush harping on desecration of temple and idols repetitively. So many churches and mosques are being razed by fanatics. List me the excesses created by other fringe groups that pose a *real* threat to the secular threads of Indian society, to balance your odds.
  • Hindu and Hindu fundamentalists are not the same. You clearly have merged the two and accuse me of doing the same. I don’t support your parochial views.
  • Its not my pre-defined ideas but what most of India thinks.
  • You accuse the media of on-sidedness as an excuse to support your innuendoes.
  • The underworld groups are criminals seeking profits, something totally different, linking them to this issue shows that you are running out of ammunition to clearly state your views.
  • The Parivar have brazenly proclaimed that their agenda is to create a Hindu nation where minorities are second class citizens. Isn’t this harmful for our country?

Credibility?

You still 'refuse to cite your source on the Staines issue. Let me tell you I looked it up, a woman claimed to be molested, could have actually been planted by the Parivar to raise credibility issue during the trial. It was immediately shot down in court. You fell for one of the oldest tricks in the books - lies.

You keep ranting off about the badinage of the discussion and yet you return to reply each and every time. Anyways, you have a *credibility* problem with your sources, and as I have seen in the India talk page, your actions confirms it. Also you are very 'rude' to anyone who doesn't tow your line, deriding other people and turning the blame to their character instead of politely citing references aiding you POV. You are only interested in adding your POV these days, not to mention increasing the size of the India page which I painstakingly squeezed out the excess fat.

There's a *big* difference aiding a criminal/terrorist and acting as a criminal. Forget about me explaining the difference, you wouldn't be interested. ¶ nichalp 20:26, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Really?

Now you go and attack my character, I thought you were the one to say no ad homniem attacks. Now you have accused me of having low intelligence, having an attitude problem. You can't debate and so turn the heat on what I do by pointing out my choice in words. Well antediluvain refers to before the floods circa 1500 BC and before. eructation also means burst forth besides burping. Even if my choices were wrong, I don't revert the edits I had made as a knee jerk reaction. Who are you writing the India page for, the world populace or yourself? KRS and I have reached a broad consensus onwhat the page should contain through discussion. You think it is dry and feel privy to add whatever you choose without a discussion. I never called you a liar. I said you fell for the parivar's lies. You knee-jerk reaction will land you in trouble sooner than you think if you continue with this in life.

I never said that Hindu fundies were the 'SOLE' creators on India's cup of woes, I said they are responsible FOR MOST OF INDIA's ILLS IN SOCIETY. Go ahead and edit the page yourself keeping it below 32KB. For all its worth, if you had a free hand, the page would exceed 100 KB. And yes, I will discredit you if you can't provide me reliable references. You aren't doing you PR any good arguing with other members who edit the page. You heat may be in India but your body certainally isn't and that what counts to all of us 'Indian' editors. ¶ nichalp 20:57, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Schooling

When were you in Bombay ie. Which years were you in Cathedral school? Do your parents have a transferable job? Lastly do you play the cello/violin? ¶ nichalp 20:33, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they do lead somewhere. I'll tell you in a day's time. ¶ nichalp 21:12, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion regarding "minor" edits in Talk:Religion

Please see my reply in Talk:Religion before making any further edits. Thanks! - Korpios 20:35, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Opera bug

I use Opera 7.51 as my browser. Just informing you that "Ek Videshwala Hindustani" in Hindi is totally garbled with glaring spelling errors in Opera. This I think, is an Opera specific problem. ¶ nichalp 18:49, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Summer heat is getting to you

• Firstly, you keep crying about your *last world* and *I'm done with your* stuff, and keep returning to my talk page to add your comments. Clearly your ego has got the better of you.
• I think the New Your summer heat has got into you. Why don't you take a break and go on a vacation to cool off.
• You need some anger management remedies. Might I suggest watching "The Godfather III" to seek tips on how to manage your anger?
• Writing intelligently is one thing. Writing a factual article is another. Living here is an advantage to on the hand and accurate information. Clearly, you don't have the stomach to admit that you were wrong with your facts.
• I don't want to argue with the Congress party.... Clearly you have lost your *credibility* and reasoning ability to even comprehend what you are arguing about. I don't want to waste my energy on untrustworthy people.
• On the contrary I would be better at governance as at least I debate, discuss and take the pains to garner factual evidence. You, on the other hand would be more suitable in an autocratic role.
• I hope you don't ever take up law or journalism, as I see no scope for you earning your salary in these too fields.

¶ nichalp 19:37, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)