harbans wrote:(1) vouched for your statement that there was nothing in the said sequence of posts from a certain source that denigrated "Hinduism".
Yes show me where?
It was your claim that there was no "intended denigration". I merely asked you several times whether you are ready to vouch for what you claimed. You still avoid doing that. Confirm that "there was no denigration" and then will come to question of pointing out "where".
(2) you still have not responded to my queries about whether it is not possible to be formally an "expert" in "economics" and "law" and still be motivated by a hidden agenda pushing for a particular political party position and agenda. This would manifest for example in persistent bias observable in lambasting, using slang and gratuitous invectives against only certain political parties or ideologies and never, ever criticizing or using similar terminology for anything connected to an apparently untouchable set of ideologies and parties. Or even trying to pass off say a certain Congress leaders role in 1984 rioting as "Hindu loony" activity will perhaps appear to you sweet examples of "economic" and "legal" illumination!
I answered you query earlier quite clearly. Economists come in different hues. Marxist to free market. 'Brilliance' is spread across the spectrum and is not a condition for 'good' only. And what is hidden about his agenda? So what if he is in favor of INC? I see many here that favor the BJP. Every one of voting age in India has some sort of preference. What is that hidden agenda you are uncovering? But on this thread i am not here to talk on his preferences. You can consult and speak to him yourself.
"On this thread" it came up because you insisted that we must trust his outpourings because of his expertise on "economics" and the "law". Agendas come up - since if he has rarely if not ever lambasted the Congress or the Left or even the maoists at the intensive derogatory level that he reserves for others - but always finds time to add a string of invectives only against the RSS/BJP, or say always attached the pair of words "Hindu loony" together and refused to attach such a pair to Muslim or Christian - then his cover of "economics" or "law" also gets suspect. I have seen no such tirade demanding similar specifics from Islamists about their demands from the same source. Which bring us to the next point.
3) you do not seem to have anything to say about why the "fatwaists" were not and are still not dubbable "exra-constitutional".
I don't know what you implied. What on fatwas do you want me to comment on a thread on Corruption?
Of course it can be convenient not to know what is implied. I have repeatedly asked in several posts over the last few pages [you claim to read line by line - or maybe such scanning is reserved for favoured lines of postings onlee] "specifically" pointing out the parallels in "legality" that have been raised so many times on this thread. If you do go back, you will see that one of the primary arguments that was being dished at BR was that his method "was blackmailing" the "elected" government, that his methods were "extra-constitutional". I had clearly connected this to exactly the same issue of "extra-constitutionalism" that arise with the "fatwas", and gave a detailed post on the issues involving Taslima.
Let me clarify the relevance of the issue for this thread again - "extra-constitutionalism" and "blackmailing the elected government" bypassing "the electoral process" was the charge repeatedly being brought against BR on this thread. I have looked back, you did not seem to mind at all. My question therefore quite clearly was, if the fatwaists are not challenged similarly by the Congress or its government for extra-constitutionalism what is the justification to raise the charge of "extra-constitutionalism" only against BR?
(4) you do not respond to the point that the Shah Bano "bill" was not given out in full specifics, no one like you demanded greater "specifics" from the street agitations or Maulanas as a pre-condition for tabling such a bill. No one seemed even to think that even the voices of Islamists demanding such a thing were illegitimate because they had not given a "specific" bill.
Brihaspati Ji, i don't seem to be commenting on a lot of inanities you have posted because that all is OT.
Sure, the tactic is similar to your favourite poster. Shah Bano case has to be bypassed as an inanity and painted as irrelevant. The reason : because exactly similar questions you now gloat over as "oh-so-valid" counterpoints against BR would be applicable for Shah Bano issue. The detailed specifics you are so keen on were not asked from the agitating Muslims, the latter simply placed a demand. It was the legislators who took it upon themselves to flesh out a specifics laden bill. More importantly none like you seem to have been asking to see the agitating muslim's demands as illegitimate because they did not spell out specifics to individual level of satisfaction. But of course you need to avoid the whole issue as "inanity" because that particular welcoming of "specifics" less demands from a street agitation was done under the INC and with keen interests of a scion of the Nehru Gandhi family.
You seem to be deliberately avoiding the point that BR and his co-movers are not a legislative political party. They have no real obligation to table a detailed "bill" which is the duty of the elected representatives
I have already mentioned that the need is for people to be more specific. If some one is sitting and making a demand from the Government. Me and a billion others would like to know what is being demanded. What specific changes are being sought, how they intend going about it at least in some detail/ specifics. This is a very basic requirement. You yourself are asking specifics from my post, yet on this very topic you fail to ask the same question on how to go about this? Ironic no? hy be specific at all? Lets throw around general one liners or post a long passage with slant references and meaningless inanity around. Lets do some sloganeering and paper it all around. Lets make that the standard. Why not, no?
This is sure going to be tricky. Yes I don't mind specifics. But are you sure you want to do this? its going to be fun. Remember anything that you say on any issue will be subject to this "specifics" clause - any demand, any claim, any desired outline changes you want to in anything - will need specifics. Oh and is it you and your favourite "economics" and "law" authority who will decide what is satisfactory as "specifics" and what inconveniences to the Centre Left are to be dismissed as "inanities"?
In a way, you are reflecting the Congress tendency to appropriate control over protest or counter-currents both inside and outside the parliament, a demand by the Congress "centre" to control public discourse. That, if you are not choosing to be deliberately blind, is the beginning of Nazism or totalitarianism.
B Ji, i request you take a break. You need one. You are reading too much into nothing. I'm being very honest here
[/quote]
No you are avoiding the issue. You seek to control what form, and who raise their voices outside the parliament. You seek to make that right to raise voice conditional on approval from the government [which as I have shown and which you consciously avoid - is biased in the INC towards only promoting and accepting "non-specifics" demands if they come from the fatwaists] and individuals like yourself and other experts on "economics" and "law" approved by you - as to what is legitimate in terms of "specifics".
As for long posts with slants, and outright arrogant cursing with slangs, yes sure you know them - from perusing line by line commentaries with long hanging-in-the-air ellipsis from experts on law and economics.
I've never seen him espousing against transparency or openness. That's why i recommended reading his posts and looking beyond his personal opinions on INC or BJP etc. I don't know nuclear physics, that's why i do read what Guru Prabhu and Amber G write in the Nuke thread..so i do recommend folks to read what they post there. Being 'brilliant' is just one part, being in the right camp is the more important part.
