BR Forums Feedback

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Dec 2009 10:32

I am sorry but I don't see why all users need to see the offensive parts of posts that have been edited by moderators and then "decide" whether the said user's behavior justified a ban or not. It is the moderator community's job and users, while welcome to have their opinions, need not be judgmental.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 10:34

again, you are presuming many things, all of which happen to be seriously off-target.

The reason given in the post edits has been "trolling" (and in one case, "yakyaking"). However, what has been left behind of Dhiman's posts (regardless of its merits in terms of logical argument) does not seem to constitute anything objectionable. And like it or not, that is what anyone coming to this discussion thread at a later point is going to see of it... what has been left behind.

as a moderator my job is to ensure a healthy place for discussion, that 'includes' editing out instances of thread derailment and OT posts. no mod can put each and every moderation activity out in the open AND maintain a healthy forum. it is also not at all possible, nor desirable to leave a comprehensive 'paper trail' so that everyone who comes afterwards can follow the 'case' in its entirety. this is a discussion forum, not a court of law.
I or any other mod can't expect to keep every thread disruptive behaviour as it is and still expect a properly functioning forum.
at the end of the day, it comes down to the point of whether one trusts the judgement of the mod(s) in question or not, which is why I had asked you to approach other mods if you have a problem with my moderation.

And what I see on that thread is that one poster who expressed an opinion critical of Israel has been jumped by others who are pro-Israeli, not with rational arguments alone but with ad-hominem attacks as well. Yet, only the poster critical of Israel has had his posts edited and has eventually been banned outright (evidently without being accorded the usual process of official warnings). Whether or not that is an accurate impression, that is how it appears.

might I point out a logical fallacy in that 'impression' ?

if his anti-israel opinion was the cause of him being banned, why have those very opinions not been deleted (since you were able to read those ?)
clearly then, the cause of the ban was NOT his anti-israel opinion but something else, which a discerning reader might 'guess' from the 'reason for edit' given in that thread. assuming you are one, the issue again comes down to whether you believe my word or dhiman's word (since I note that the points you raise are the same cries of victimization raised by dhiman when his trolling was called out)
apologies in advance in case I'm mistaken in any way.

(evidently without being accorded the usual process of official warnings)

'evidently', this is not the case, as anyone reading the thread would know I explicitly mentioned that

Rahul M in Indo-israel thread wrote:Because there are certain forum regulations that call for a ban only after 3 warnings

how it can be concluded that anything else happened is beyond me, unless you are not ready to believe my version of events.

in which case I would (again) request you to get in touch with another mod and ask him to check if my version of events check out.
just FYI, dhiman's ban is a temporary one, for 1 month only.

1) Leave the poster's "trollish" posts intact, so that they may serve as a justification for the ban, and also as an example to others of what kind of posts are not tolerated. This could be accompanied by a request to other posters not to respond further to what the banned person has said (in case they actually need to be told, which they shouldn't).

not quite practical, a post has been edited means that the content was not fit to be on BRF otherwise it most certainly won't have been edited. as for your second point, I wish all people were so balanced and self-controlled ! keeping it intact would certainly have drawn responses from other members leading to general spiraling down of thread content and eventual warning/banning of everyone involved, not just the original disruptor.

2) If the above alternative appears unseemly, then delete the entire discussion initiated by the banned poster, including posts responding to the alleged troll. If the whole thing was a flame-worthy bit of nonsense anyway, there's no sense in leaving any of it hanging around.

I delete only the part that is absolutely necessary to be deleted, nothing more. I am not ready to delete a whole post for two lines of trolling.

for the record, since you are interested in knowing what exactly was edited out, this is one example of the 'trollish' posts :

================================

Dhiman wrote:Dixitji Sir,

Excellent point However, as with any Israeli-Arab issue, this situation must be analyzed in minutest of detail in a completely neutral academic manner. So I bring up three images as evidence:

(Veeru on left offcourse)
(Ashkenzai)
(Daaku Gabbar Singh)

Now, in order to draw a match, we must first rank each character according to level of stress due to constipation:

1. Veeru: seems normal, happy, and in good health despite being in Jail.
2. Ashkenzai: seems like a gorilla suffering from a major case of constipation. If he doesn't relieve himself soon, something is going to splatter all over the walls.
3. Daaku Gabbar Singh: again seems to be suffering from a major case of constipation just like a gorilla would, however not as acute as #2 above.

Therefore, based on the above axiomatic evidence and derviation thereof, it appears that Askenzai looks like Daaku Gabbar Singh and has no similiarties whatsoever with Veeru.

Now you may say that, maybe its the environment. However, I beg to differ as it is well demonstrated from the pictures that Veeru is in a hot jail, Ashenzai is in an air-conditioned building, and Daaku Gabbar singh is clearly in hot weather. So clearly environmental factors don't seem to have any bearing on looks.

Hence, based on the above axioms and derivations, I respectfully submit to you that it is infact Daaku Gabbar Singh who resembles Ashkenzai the most. Q.E.D.

================================

archan · Post by **archan** » 20 Dec 2009 10:48

Wasn't this the same guy who wanted his usename to be Gabbar Singh at one point?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 11:06

oh dear, went on and on about how not allowing gabbar singh was a serious infringement of his rights and so on.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Dec 2009 11:16

While it is true that Moderators are not perfect.

It reminds me of the saying - Uneasy likes the head that wears the Crown!

We try and hopefully, we meet you all at least half way to your aspirations.

There are many who feel I am a suicide bomber. Sadly, under the tirade that I face, one is tempted to contemplate suicide so that those who force me to go that way are jailed for life and not get other Mods to go my way!

That statement is the enqyoob style!

But I can never match him!

negi · Post by **negi** » 20 Dec 2009 11:19

Btw Gabbar singh is a genuine human sounding name names like 'Shaitan singh' , 'Gabbar singh' are pretty common in parts of NI.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 11:48

negi wrote:Btw Gabbar singh is a genuine human sounding name names like 'Shaitan singh' , 'Gabbar singh' are pretty common in parts of NI.

a real gabbar singh would be OK with G Singh, right ?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 20 Dec 2009 13:59

Because there are certain forum regulations that call for a ban only after 3 warnings

Sorry but I have never seen this written down (nor would I agree to see it even if someone wrote it). IMO, the 2nd and 3rd warning should be given AFTER the ban. If someone assured me that I would not be banned until AFTER 3 warning-earning crimes, I could do a lot of things that I have wanted to do to a lot of ppl and get away with it. I am not GOI, to be giving out "warnings" to Pakistan with infinite patience.

Privacy violations cannot be taken back. For instance if I were to reveal that Rahul M is really Rahul Gandhi or Preeti Zinta, that's it, it cannot be taken back. In cases of privacy violation and some other blatant things like that, I plan to continue the policy of instant ban. Nothing else can be justified. In other things, 1 warning, and then if there is a repetition soon, ban. The "3 warnings" is for people who live on the edge, and may accumulate 3 warnings in very different threads over 3 months, and need a cooling off, nothing very serious.

Since I adopted these kinder and gentler policies, I have not had to ban anyone, and I hope to maintain that record as far as possible. The forum is exceptionally clean and well-behaved these days, and post quality is excellent for the most part for the past couple of months. This is the whole point - keep an environment where people can learn and think through complex issues, and post new facts and remember old ones. I am learning a great deal.

Cheers

(But in my defence, RayC, I posted, but deleted a response to the stuff about "conveying impressions" and about "leaving the pakistan posted by offensive postors for others to see". You can guess what it would have been. )

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 20 Dec 2009 17:42

I second enqyoob except that Rahul M could never come close to Pretty Zinta!!

Was Gabbar Singh not allowed since he could turn out to merely Jabber Singh?

A gabbing Lion?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 20 Dec 2009 17:45

RayC wrote:I second enqyoob except that Rahul M could never come close to Pretty Zinta!!

thanks for that vote of confidence !

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Dec 2009 02:39

No I did not allow Gabbar Singh as a userID as it would set a precedent and soon the forum could look like a teenage arcade with guys named Shahrukh Khan and Amitabh Bachchan.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 21 Dec 2009 09:44

I tried to register as Gabbar Singh years ago myself. About 20 minutes later, Shiv changed it to my real name

. I did post for around 1.5 years with my real name and then re-registered under a new handle (this one) since I wanted a bit more privacy. The old handle hasn't been used since (and I've even forgotten the password, so it doesn't matter anyway)

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 21 Dec 2009 13:11

So, (mulla) enqyoob is promoting the 'muthalaq' (three talaqs in one shot for instant divorce). Good.

I got so used to the high stds of BRF, that with the other forums, I feel irritated seeing crazy user names, SMS lingo etc.

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 21 Dec 2009 13:40

re-posted from MRCA thread...!

I know it gonna sound awkward....But what I am suggesting may be good for some...!

You just see...every where...there is talk of hope and dominion....but every one has really forgot pessimists....!

with permissions from mods....one need to make a "HAI HAI" thread....i mean "MURDABAD MURDABAD" thread..so that

can take their frustration out.....!

I am sorry if I got the things wrong...!

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 21 Dec 2009 13:51

we have already thought of that !

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=4631

sumshyam · Post by **sumshyam** » 21 Dec 2009 13:59

Rahul M wrote:we have already thought of that !

ok...!

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 21 Dec 2009 14:24

Muthalaq by SMS is even more halal.

archan · Post by **archan** » 21 Dec 2009 16:06

SMS as in See-neyar Mullah Servicej?

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 17:15

Since RayC has locked (yet another) thread, but this time using parts of my post in a manner that seemed to indicate that I am supporting the thread lock, I have a disclaimer.

I did not call for any thread locks, I never do -- a position of benign neglect does not mean actively silencing discussion.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 21 Dec 2009 17:54

Sanku wrote:Since RayC has locked (yet another) thread, but this time using parts of my post in a manner that seemed to indicate that I am supporting the thread lock, I have a disclaimer.

I did not call for any thread locks, I never do -- a position of benign neglect does not mean actively silencing discussion.

Do it and you are damned.

Don't do it and you are damned.

So, you were not recommending a lock. What were you doing? Making a point that what you say and feel is the one and only point of view in the world?

Not yet again, actually. Others do it more frequently.

I have been real patient and when I was a poster, I rode the waves. Then stopped posting and informed all I would not post and instead would wear the Mod's hat thereon (in another thread). How fairer than that do you desire one to be?

As far as this thread goes, I saw your point of view since it was going nowhere excepting as a needle stuck in the groove of a record.

Heard of Tony Lumpkin?

That is what was happening!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 21 Dec 2009 20:04

RayC wrote:
Sanku wrote:Since RayC has locked (yet another) thread, but this time using parts of my post in a manner that seemed to indicate that I am supporting the thread lock, I have a disclaimer.

I did not call for any thread locks, I never do -- a position of benign neglect does not mean actively silencing discussion.
So, you were not recommending a lock. What were you doing? Making a point that what you say and feel is the one and only point of view in the world?

Obviously not, I was calling for a policy of not attacking others pov but if people find them odious giving them the "ignore" treatment and continuing with posting the right stuff of your own to carry the discussion forward.

A thread does not have to have all posters agree, we can remain civil and keep putting our points of views without nastiness of breaking of forum rules -- too much to ask?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 21 Dec 2009 20:39

Mods,

The thread “Future strategic scenario for the Indian Subcontinent” has been locked, as few people feel that there is nothing new to learn in that topic. Nothing new to learn, for whom and why? Is it that those people “do not” want to learn anything new, or they “know” that others have nothing new to say?

While it is moderators’ prerogative to lock a thread, I see very little logic in locking this thread. The “future strategic scenario for the Indian subcontinent” is an evolving one and currently is going thru interesting changes sociologically, militarily, and economically.

Request you to reconsider.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 22 Dec 2009 00:00

This suggestion / request is for Bharat-rakshak in general.

BR has acquired a certain respect in terms of indian defence and geostrategy. Is it possible to hold a series of Bharat-rakshak events where renowned speakers will attend and give thier views? Or hold a Mega BR meet where the biggies from the world of the armed forces, strategists, BRF's own experts, attend and give their views?

Sponsorship will be needed.

The BR logo and the brand name BR need much more prominence than currently.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 22 Dec 2009 09:11

Aide Mémoire

Archan's post:

I am sorry but I don't see why all users need to see the offensive parts of posts that have been edited by moderators and then "decide" whether the said user's behavior justified a ban or not. It is the moderator community's job and users, while welcome to have their opinions, need not be judgmental.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Dec 2009 10:17

Raju:

You know what you posted, and so do I. I did a minor edit that removed the part that might bring the Authorities to your door (or poor Shri Seetal's door, Houristan forbid), and substituted something innoccuous. The discussion had moved on, so there was no need to go back etc. and I didn't want to make a fuss.

Your reaction convinced me of the error of my ways. My deep apologies for my conduct. IOW, the offending portions of your post were clearly not an oversight, but intentional, since you clearly went back there to see if it was still there, and got your undies in a knot when you saw that it had been "edited". I should have known better than to try to be nice. So I have deleted your post, and issued a warning to you. Obviously we can't have postors going around issuing death/violence threats on a moderated forum.

If you don't have the maturity and can't control your rage enough to avoid posting such things on a public forum, that's your problem. Your bringing such baggage here becomes everyone else's problem. Not acceptable.

Make your choice.

Cheers.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 22 Dec 2009 20:05

Dear Admins,

I would like to report Mr. Enqyoob’s improper use of my handle, indirectly imposing terrorist tendencies on me and another poster with handle name “prem”. I think it is not only insensitive in his part but also amounts to intentional character-assassination.

I request you to take immediate and stern action against Enqyoob.

enqyoob wrote:RamaY asks:

I agree with your logic w.r.t Pakis. What about the 16 KSA citizens who became pilots and airline passengers on that fateful day?
Prem responds:
I dont think its OT but Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan and whole world knows about this. Lest not ignore this fact while dealing with Islamists or Jehadis or whatever they are called .
...

Very briefly, let us suppose Rama and Prem (Houristan forbid!) were Indonesians planning a Jihadi attack on, say, the tallest outcrop of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica. I mean, LOOK at all those Penguins - going around with their ankles and faces uncovered, haraaam!

So this is a tough operation. Antarctica is far from, say, Indonesia. Takes a lot of money and meticulous planning. The final step is a spectacular, and I mean crashing of TWO hijacked Russian An-12 transport aircrafts at 400 knots, flying low level over the ice towers and smack into the penguin nest in the Jewish-owned, Russian-financed, Indian-built Duniya's Tallest Towers.

1 year of meticulous planning and preparation later, and much transfer of money through Dubai by Pakistani ISI agints later, it is Jihad Din. They load up into the planes, and conduct a timed-to-the second attack on the crew, well-rehearsed by the (Saudi? or Paki?) Practice Attack in December 1999 on the Indian Airlines plane from Kathmandu.

Who would be your choice as pilots to execute that last maneuver, under conditions where the passengers were trying to rush the cockpit, fighters were scrambling, 200 people were screaming and terrorists were ranting and waving box-cutters and cutting people's throats? And not to forget, the 2 pilots on each plane were bleeding to death from slit throats and the control panel looked like your kitchen on Bakr Id?

I noticed similar tendency by an unknown poster/moderator regarding another post of mine in a different thread. I posted the following in the “Whines” thread.

RamaY wrote:

I don't understand the "selective" clipping of my innovative dialectics!

First my post was edited, changing the word "Your" to "My" in my post. It became "what is the purpose of YOUR fart " to "what is the purpose of MY fart " . And then the entire fart was EDITED.

I thought I was following Knowledge^3 writing estyle, but looks like that RIGHTing estyle was reserved for esteemed beople onleee

As a proof of the tampering, I quote RayC-ji’s use of the original post.

RayC wrote:
Stan-ji,

Which part of your paki brain wrote this post?
I presume the sane part to counter the insane stuff.

Or maybe I am in the clouds and have not understood a fig!

The whole purpose of a discussion is to present alternate view points and debate towards a consensus or identify alternate solution spaces. It is one thing that poster/moderators ridiculing each other and it is completely a different case when some moderators use their privileges to “Tamper” posts and “Abuse” poster’s handles.

I request the forum admins to enforce the basic ethical conduct expected in BRF.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 22 Dec 2009 20:22

enqyoob wrote:Raju:

You know what you posted, and so do I. I did a minor edit that removed the part that might bring the Authorities to your door (or poor Shri Seetal's door, Houristan forbid), and substituted something innoccuous. The discussion had moved on, so there was no need to go back etc. and I didn't want to make a fuss.

Your reaction convinced me of the error of my ways. My deep apologies for my conduct. IOW, the offending portions of your post were clearly not an oversight, but intentional, since you clearly went back there to see if it was still there, and got your undies in a knot when you saw that it had been "edited". I should have known better than to try to be nice. So I have deleted your post, and issued a warning to you. Obviously we can't have postors going around issuing death/violence threats on a moderated forum.

If you don't have the maturity and can't control your rage enough to avoid posting such things on a public forum, that's your problem. Your bringing such baggage here becomes everyone else's problem. Not acceptable.

Make your choice.

Cheers.

Boss, what then is the point of 'feedback' ? You can't go around editing posts as if the words belong to a poster.
Either delete the post completely or show that those are your words.

and save your mock apologies for yourself.

RayC · Post by **RayC** » 22 Dec 2009 20:28

Raju wrote:

Boss, what then is the point of 'feedback' ? You can't go around editing posts as if the words belong to a poster.
Either delete the post completely or show that those are your words.

and save your mock apologies for yourself.

While feedbacks are always appreciated, but then if they are to be implemented as if it were a diktat, why have Moderators.

Better to have Implementers and not Moderators!

He is not mocking, it is just that he has a weird sense of humour and that we Indians can't understand. Must have been educated in England who have a weird and subtle humour.

Maybe Eton or Harrow.

Raju · Post by **Raju** » 22 Dec 2009 20:33

Sir, what he is accusing me of is that I have been issuing threats against an enemy nation of which the offended person is a citizen.
there is no race, religion angle in this of any consequence.
if he feels so offended against my threat against the US, he should be in American Rakshak and not Bharat Rakshak FWIW.

my emotions are shared by majority of my countrymen, no Indian has anything good to say about Americans except those who are settled there.
but Mr. N wants to make this a big deal. Fact of matter is his emotions are not shared by any Indians in East, West, North or South except in pseudo polls conducted
by organizations sponsored by western media.

US has no friends in India.
Not in the Indian middle-class or lower class anyways who have their feet grounded in India and Indian Interests.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Dec 2009 20:58

Raju wrote: if he feels so offended against my threat against the US, he should be in American Rakshak and not Bharat Rakshak FWIW.

Question is not about a person. We do not believe in issuing threats to any country on this forum. Even though pak is a special case but still most members do not go down to the level of posting empty threads a la deaf and dumb forum on here.
We are a discussion forum aimed at maintaining and enhancing a multitude of issues related to Bharat, that's it. So you agree that you posted a threat, and it got edited out and now you are launching a personal attack on the person? that calls for another warning in my book, though I am resisting the urge.
The only point you had to make was that enqyoob should leave a comment when he edits a post so people know who edited the post and why. Beyond that, you should have to agree with a moderator's discretion regarding the content of the post.

my emotions are shared by majority of my countrymen, no Indian has anything good to say about Americans except those who are settled there.
but Mr. N wants to make this a big deal. Fact of matter is his emotions are not shared by any Indians in East, West, North or South except in pseudo polls conducted
by organizations sponsored by western media.

US has no friends in India.
Not in the Indian middle-class or lower class anyways who have their feet grounded in India and Indian Interests.

You can have any 'emotion' you want - our concern is limited to what is posted in this forum.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 22 Dec 2009 21:03

Sir, what he is accusing me of is that I have been issuing threats against an enemy nation of which the offended person is a citizen.
there is no race, religion angle in this of any consequence.
if he feels so offended against my threat against the US, he should be in American Rakshak and not Bharat Rakshak FWIW.

err no, you have been issuing threats against common people of an "enemy" nation, there's a difference although you might not appreciate or understand it.

this may not be america-rakshak forum but this is most certainly a forum that takes the general Indian POV towards such issues, IOW calls for taking the lives of the average american (or haitian or timbuktuian) will not be tolerated under the guise of "Indian patriotism".
it is no such thing. what you are saying has no connection to Indian patriotism.

my emotions are shared by majority of my countrymen,

most certainly NOT, most Indians will be horrified by what you asked, the scum residing in our western neighbour would however appreciate it completely !

many Indians don't like what the US govt does or has done, that DOES NOT translate into a wish to kill/harm common american citizens like you propose to.

please take your hate speech elsewhere.
=============

archan, please take a look at the usernotes, first entry, to see what I'm saying.

archan · Post by **archan** » 22 Dec 2009 21:07

RamaY,
I don't believe he called you a terrorist. It was an example, starting with "suppose". Like in my primary school the teacher used to say, suppose x is equal to 2, and I would go hain? either it is x or it is 2, why should I "suppose"? safe to say I would not have gotten a degree if I refused to "suppose".

Regarding editing of posts without leaving a trace. I agree with you that this is a bad practice and I oppose it. I request other moderators to kindly be more careful in this regard.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 22 Dec 2009 21:30

once again I keep suggesting

Ideally moderators should not get involved in discussions - if they love it that much they should relinquish their mod title and be normal posters and discuss all they want

If they cannot get themselves to do that then at the very minimum they SHOULD not police threads or discussions where they are involved.

I am glad that I see most of the junior mods generally adhering to that.

junior - not in age as I have no idea of their age

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 22 Dec 2009 22:19

All this

is on a MILITARY Forum?

RamaY has really excelled in his contortions. Note that the reason why I posted that hypothetical example was that he and another postor kept trying to drag in their hate against Muslims, most particularly including INDIAN Muslims, into every discussion, and I was trying to deflect them from the ban that was looming on both. Look at the result! Again, bad judgement on my part. No point in ever trying to reason with this ilk. As for Raju, Q.E.D. The irrational hate comes across loud and clear.

OK, some postors have crossed all bounds. Enough is enough.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Dec 2009 00:15

enqyoob wrote:...he and another postor kept trying to drag in their hate against Muslims, most particularly including INDIAN Muslims, into every discussion ...

This is in YOUR mind, not ours. I was referring to the "known" fact that 16 out of 21 Sept11 attackers were Saudi Nationals, and Muslims.

In return you rediculed that fact and somehow infered that I "hate" Indian Muslims.

This is nothing but witch hunting, and opinion-engineering in the name of forum moderation.

Even then, you were wrong to use my handle to impose your prejudices.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Dec 2009 03:16

Enqyoob Sir ji
You are mistaken that every criticism of Islamists is against IM. Just to clear the mud,As far as i am concerned any one who is an Indian is good enough for me and any one who is Indian but sympathize or indulge in givinig any kind of moral, spiritual, material comfort and aid to mortal enemis like Paki is as good as Paki . Well, there might be grey area in this matter for few intelligent folks who can justify ,eulogize and protect the enemy strengthning ingredients but i am straightforward person and must call it as i see it. Jeehadiz need to be eliminated is universally accepted understanding , if some folks get offended by this and justify jeehadi religious doctrine then IMHO their sensitivitioes deserve to be ignored as it pertains to the stability of civilized societies all over the world. In Us Vs Them equation, wont it be better if Us Wins and survive !!

IF you have difference of opinion on Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan" then i guess Doc Shiv Ji is better exponent of the doctrine to remove the ignorance. Paki gave us proof of this adage on all 26/11 videos on net and Tv channels.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 23 Dec 2009 03:27

Should not the nuanced approach be also applied when blanketly bashing all "Pakis" for their "Pakiness" which is "supposed" to be behind all the atrocities sourced from that country against India? Since by various means it has been demanded that Pakisness is independent of any theology, then it becomes a national stereotype. I have not found references to Sikhs, or Hindus or Christians from Pakistan getting involved in such atrocities against India. Do we also blame such "Pakistanis" for "Pakiness"? So there are "Pakis" who do not show "Pakiness" - is not that a contradiction?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Dec 2009 03:42

Paki , Pakiness, Jeehad, Islam,Islamiat, Pakistaniat,Ghajwa-E-Hind, Direct Action Day ,Partition and Millions life lost along with 3 wars based on the cause caused by holy Qasim's arrival in Sindh; might have some kind of rational explanation of this phenomenon and its effect on India and Indians. Enqyoob Sir ji knowlegde runs both wide and deep in this subject , he might have good explanation and advise to how to bear this beautiful burden bravely.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 23 Dec 2009 06:20

Since I was born only yesterday and have total (but maybe temporary) amnesia about what each postor has been doing at BRF, in some cases for years, I believe all this rationality and innocence absolutely.

Shouldn't every person of a certain religion get to read BRF every day and be reminded of 300,000 years of atrocities (only one side, please!) that are their fault? How else can we convince the Duniya that this IS the place for rational, useful discussion on Strategic and Military Affairs relevant to India?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 23 Dec 2009 06:40

enqyoob wrote:Since I was born only yesterday and have total (but maybe temporary) amnesia about what each postor has been doing at BRF, in some cases for years, I believe all this rationality and innocence absolutely. Shouldn't every person of a certain religion get to read BRF every day and be reminded of 300,000 years of atrocities (only one side, please!) that are their fault? How else can we convince the Duniya that this IS the place for rational, useful discussion on Strategic and Military Affairs relevant to India?

Good yardstic!

How many of your posts are strategic/military in nature and how many are pure hate-speech against so-called pakis?

How is someone questioning 1000 years of ideological/colonial subjugation is different from 60 yrs of babudom in GTRE?

This is your trademark approach to divert a just criticism against your moderation. You cannot right a percieved wrong with another wrong, that is abusing my handle.

As a moderator you have many other ways to control a poster. In this instance your approach is wrong and unethical.

Show some grace my dear friend!