A Student Remembers a Great Teacher

Here`s the deal with Intellectual Integrity, the Israeli-Palestini war and Pedophilia. (Not that I ever tried to conflate the issues on this board to date.)

Obvioulsy, no one denies that the Israel-Palestine affair is a serious one in need of much thoughful debate (though, frankly, and in the words, of Kissinger(?) it`s one that will last for next 50 years at least.)

But here`s the thing...

The self-appointed custodians of Intellectual Integrity pour their hearts out (checks too? I wonder) to the hapless Palestinians. But their intellectual sublimity somehow enables them to, still, cheer on those who gingerly call for the death/castration of individuals who, indicted on crimes that (whether or not we accept the question of consent-ability) are not even criminal in other advanced nations, are very often tortured and killed in prison due to the hysteria and mania that the cheered-on individuals here are spreading.

Way to go! Now we all know of our particular ``responsibilities are in OUR understanding of the various positions around political issues`` and
``What initiative [WE should] take in educating ourselves in an intellectually honest manner about a controversial issue.. [and] what doing so entail.``

Cause for pause, perhaps?

Re: SaminaSha #178

I think what I wrote about Said just gave a specific example of what you asked for.

Re: Patrick`s (PM`s) posts.

Thanks for the kind words about my posts and apologies for the belated acknowledgement. I was travelling on business and didn`t have time to compose a longer reply.

Regards.

puyu:
Simple Lesson: You do not--cannot-- hold a rational debate with Intellectual Dishonesty, let alone Pomposity Personified.

chowk staff!!
I demand the right to reply.The last post was not slandering at all!
Samina sha
Its this contempt for the lesser intellects that makes you (mis?) understood.
If you could come down to the level of us mortals ,may be we could be enlightened!

Puyu,

Do you need help tying your shoelaces? Using the toliet?

Why the hell do I have to explain everything to y`all? None of you are paying me for my time-I charge about 30 dollars an hour for regular reading comprehension, 50 dollars for knuckleheads...go ask your bud gene wilder`s flour and see if he`ll lend you the dough. I`m sure he will if you throw some neighborhood boy into the deal.

Perhaps even Lambda sahib will understand the idea of child ``exploitation``. Though I doubt it. You`ve all been a particularly slow lot.

Mantolives #220 Agreed. I am all for focussing on what someone has actually written, rather than on questioning his or her credentials are for writing what he/she has written.

puyu,
If look real close, you`ll see i DID NOT initiate any ``personal`` on this board. The most I did was, as expalined much, much earlier, was urge Saminash to consider the implications of her questions ``privately``.
Guilty consciences sometimes erupt, I think. (Ok, I knew it was going to come to that, and was happy to allow it to, after that pompous post, and after she refused to engage on Bruce Bawer.

PM
I thought it was the other way round!

re. puyu #219
Wrong! My ``point`` was not just about a claim of Saminasha that had to do with myself. There was also a quite impersonal basis for the ensuing attack. Saminasha claimed that Bruce Bawer`s passage was a classic example of ``Orientalism``, so obvious, in fact, taht ``exposing`` it was, to use her words, ``like shooting fish in a barrel``.
I showed that she clearly had him wrong, owing to her own bias and, for want of a better word, discourse (something about being a prisoner to it). It was only when Saminasha refused to acknowledge this, and came back with her pompous post #whocaresnow, that I decided to make it personal, to expose her well, shall we say `lack of consistency` now?
rgds,
PM

PM, Tahmed,

I found Dr. Hoodbhoy`s criticism of Ibne-Warraq a bit excessive ... I think it took away from the argument... and as you can see allowed Professor Kurtz to ignore the real issue and take him apart on that...

A great lesson for all interactors of Chowk no doubt.

-YLH

pm,saminasha!
pms point was that in momentary lapse of something(!) samina made a comment on pm
and when challenged refused to meet it.and all this after all those big talk abt intellectual integrity.
pm made his point through fair and unjustifiable n unfair means.
case closed

ill just say that its unpleasant to have not realized the obvious!
I feel manipulated.
i dont want any more flared up egos here.
I guess the mistake is mine of having not seen through the game.

as for what is written im reading through them

Manto:
Scrolling through the article of Houdbhoy`s, my eye just caught this paragraph. I feel I`ve read all I need to. (What is it with these people who are out to defend Said anyway,. Is three some rule that states that you need a lobotomy to do so or something???)
``And Warraq? Best known for his book ``Why I Am Not A Muslim``, he has done little more than replicate Bertrand Russell`s arguments for deserting
Christianity.``
UTTER BULL!! Comparing Russels` 8-page essay which might just as well have been called ``Why I am not a Theist`` to Ibn-Warraq`s fabulously researched an annotated, scholarly treatment of Historial Islam and Prophet Mohammed takes some special disingenuous-- or even, I`m tempted to say, a bit of Saminasha Syndrome.
Need I read more to know where the man is coming from in this case?? What say Mr. TAhmed? ;-) DO I need to read at least three books and 12 essays by the professor to be able to comment on his judgment in this case? (I mean, it`s not like I`ve taken a PoMo course or anything), and I`m certainly not out to show, anymore, how I can beat crummy PoMos using their own--what`s the word?-- ``Structure``. (Who needs to be original when you can simply recycle and `thrash`!)

---

puyu sahib(a):
Apologize for what exactly? Were you agreeing with what was written or with WHO might have written it?

shucks!!what a day!!
The last posts in CCs name were posted by me!
It just happens that we share a computer.
Very sorry abt that!!
Please CC and puyu are different persons!
Samina i can see my IQ go down the drain
Im sorry and wont be coming back to this §#`* board again
:-(

Saminasha,
I admit it was a comment based on whom i thought to be a 3rd party!
It could be,frankly i dont know
I didnt bother to go through all the posts. I was disgusted with this board and lef it with
#108 and #135.
If I made any mistake I apologise but this weekend im going to go throug all the posts and explain what `point` pm has made or not.
PS:-EGOS did flare up,didnt it?
I can say that upto 135 you were also not very modest,though aim was noble.
apologies again till we meet again at the end of the weekend

oops pm you made an a$$ of me!!
you SHOULD apologise.
It was unfair.
But doesnt take frm the fact that i made a fool of myself

Samina
apologies again!

Samina
apologies again!
nowthat i realise the game PM plyed.
Still ill go through the unpleasant task of reading the posts again

Mantolives: Thanks for posting this interesting exchange. Clearly, Hoodbhoy deserves respect for his speaking out for civilized society in Pakistan. The exchange between him and Kurtz indicates that Hoodbhoy has gone too far in attacking Warraq. This brings me to the point I have been making all along: dont get into this ``he said/she said`` way of analyzing issues.

Who cares what Warraq says, and who cares what Warraq`s credentials are when you can read what Said says and use your own judgement. And when I do that, it becomes clear to me that Said was a dishonest man in many different ways as I have explained ad nauseum on this board with references to his own passages (one that I presented, and another that was presented by Samina Shah and given to me to explain). The responses, which have either been in the form of abuse from a couple of posters, or in the form of belittling my credentials to question the Great Man.

Most people on this board, I think, even if they are not happy about a dead man being termed dishonest, have also read the passages that were posted from Said and realize that he wasnt the ``Great Teacher`` as this article tries to make him out to be. My impression is that he was a personable fellow individually, but some of biggest troublemakers in the world are very personable fellows.

Pervez Hoodbhoy`s defence of Said:



In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Edward Said was slandered by
Ibn
Warraq, a man with pretensions to being a secular humanist and the
author
of several books.

You will find below my correspondence with Dr. Paul Kurtz, chairman
and
founder of the Council for Secular Humanism where Warraq is presently
being supported.

I believe that this exchange raises significant issues that might
interest
you.

Pervez

---

6 October 2003
Prof. Paul Kurtz
Chairman and Founder
The Council for Secular Humanism
Buffalo, New York.

Dear Prof. Kurtz,

As you know, I was an invited speaker at the Council for Secular
Humanism`s conference in Washington DC in April 2003. I enjoyed
meeting
you and some of your colleagues at the Council, have read your books
with
admiration, applaud your call for a ``Planetary Humanism``,
and was
heartened by your principled public opposition to America`s war
against
Iraq. However, as I made evident in my public remarks at the
Conference,
as well as to you personally, I was much distressed by speeches
expressing
intense hatred and hostility against Muslims. One speaker (Armen
Saganian)
went so far as to advocate their violent elimination through ethic
cleansing. I was and remain disturbed by the Council`s continued
association with -- and active promotion of -- certain individuals who
associate themselves with the extreme right-wing chorus in the United
States that bays for Muslim and Arab blood.

I am moved to write this to you now because of one such person, Ibn
Warraq, a member of your Council and a speaker at the Washington
conference. In an outrageous and disgraceful op-ed published in the
Wall
Street Journal (Sept 29, 2003) Ibn Warraq attacked Professor Edward
Said
of Columbia University, who passed away recently. Warraq shamelessly
accuses Professor Said of intellectual terrorism and fomenting Muslim
rage. It is hard to imagine a greater slur against a man who was
among the
finest of people and a humanist to his core.

I knew Edward Said for about 15 years and considered him an exemplary
figure. As you know, he spent much of his life advocating the right
of
the Palestinian people to national self-determination. He did so while
acknowledging the reality of the Jewish people and the Holocaust. In a
1999 essay in The New York Times he wrote that ``There can be no
reconciliation unless both peoples, two communities of suffering,
resolve
that their existence is a secular fact, and that it has to be dealt
with
as such.`` In 1999 Edward, together with the Israeli citizen
Daniel
Barenboim, arranged for Wagner`s music to be taught to Palestinian
students in the occupied West Bank and thus created the award-winning
West-Eastern Divan Orchestra. For Edward ``humanism is the only,
and I
would go as far as to say the final resistance we have against the
inhuman
practices and injustices that disfigure human history.``

And Warraq? Best known for his book ``Why I Am Not A
Muslim``, he has done
little more than replicate Bertrand Russell`s arguments for deserting
Christianity. But he is no Russell. Russell openly and honestly
stood up
for secular politics, peace, justice, and humanism as universal
principles, applying them consistently in every situation. Thus,
Russell
opposed his own country`s wars and his country`s nuclear weapons as
well
as the wars and weapons of others. Warraq is blinded by his hate of
Muslims. Roundly condemning the use of religion in the Islamic world,
he
is silent about the political uses of Christianity and Judaism as he
scurries around to gain favor with the neo-conservatives and the
Christian-Right in the White House. I hear not a squeak from him
about the
United States having organized the great Global Jihad in Afghanistan
to
combat the godless Soviet Union, the success of which brought to us
Osama
bin Laden and his fellow jihadists. Nor do I find mention of the
systematic and deliberate subversion of secular governments in Muslim
states by the United States, or the unstinting support that it
provided to
Islamic fundamentalist states such as Saudi Arabia until 9-11. I have
looked at Warraq`s writings in vain to seek reference to the messianic
Judaism that drives Israel`s unrelenting expansion, and the
construction
of the world`s largest concentration camp with an apartheid wall that
is
25 feet high, five feet thick and 350 kilometers long.

This opens a larger issue the meaning of humanism in the context of
today`s world, and the definition of a humanist. Surely a humanist
both in
my definition and yours resolutely rejects the role of religion in
public
life and affairs of the state; rejects the role of political and
religious
ideology in determining personal ethics and morality; rejects the
notion
of supernatural interference in determining physical phenomena; and
affirms the right of individuals to make their own choices informed by
reason. Even as I write to you from Islamabad, I am fully aware of the
enormous import each of these carries within the context of my
environment. But, while these are necessary conditions for being a
humanist, they are surely insufficient.

In my opinion the very first, and most fundamental, premise for a
humanist
is to accept that all human life whether Christian, Muslim, Jew,
Hindu or
of whichever nationality and race is equally valuable. This must be
accompanied by the belief that rational critical thought is the
essence to
living a civilized, human, existence. These two premises, if taken
seriously, do not allow humanists to join the ranks marching in the
insane
war of civilizations being fomented equally by some in the US and in
the
Muslim world. Rather, humanists must follow the lead given by Edward
Said, when he invited us and challenged us to ``concentrate on
the slow
working together of cultures that overlap, borrow from each other, and
live together.``

If your conference and Ibn Warraq are any indications, American
humanism
is facing a growing crisis. In these difficult times, reflection,
rational
argument and moral principles appears to be too heavy a burden for
some.
They prefer the easy refuge of American exceptionalism and, for their
own
narrow and selfish reasons, they are eager to help make people into
demons
and support the use of force and violence. I urge you and your
colleagues
to begin a wide ranging and sustained public reflection about what you
understand humanism to be, to consider carefully who your Council
embraces
a humanist, and to confront those whose actions undermine the
foundations
of humanism.


Sincerely yours.

Pervez Hoodbhoy
Professor of Physics
Quaid-e-Azam University
Islamabad 45320, Pakistan.

---

KURTZ REPLIES:

October 9, 2003

Dear Pervez Hoodbhoy:

May I thank you for your letter about Ibn Warraq. We always take your
views very seriously. We appreciate your fine efforts on behalf of
understanding between Islamic countries and the Western world. Permit
me,
then, to lay your fears to rest. First of all, Ibn Warraq`s letter
was to
the Wall Street Journal, not Free Inquiry or some other outlet
sponsored
by the Council for Secular Humanism. We cannot be held responsible
for the
views of somebody in another journal. Whether we agree or disagree
with
Ibn Warraq on the issue of Edward Said, surely, he is at liberty to
advance his argument. Ibn Warraq`s role as a Research Fellow of the
Center
for Inquiry does not require him to submit all his material for
approval
before publication. No reputable research institute operates like
that.

Regarding the expression of different opinions at the Washington
conference panel, surely this is what panels are for. It is generally
understood that the host organization is not to be held responsible
for
all the opinions expressed at a forum they organize. Conference
panels are
designed to provide a range of opinions on any particular issue, have
them
articulated effectively and for the audience to leave the panel better
informed as a result. In this, the panel was a success. That some
opinions
expressed were unhelpful is an integral part of the process. In any
case,
Armen Saginian`s points were criticized at the time by Bill Cooke, the
Center`s International Director. It is also important to note that Ibn
Warraq`s views were among the more moderate on that panel. Concerning
the
Iraq war, it is true that editors of Free Inquiry came out strongly
against the preemptive strike by the USA in Iraq. We did, however,
allow
dissenting op-ed points of view. And Christopher Hitchins and Edward
Tabash, for example, supported the war.

You offer a pretty comprehensive, indeed ad hominem, attack on Ibn
Warraq.
You only mention Why I am Not A Muslim, accusing him of fomenting
hatred
against Muslims. If this were true, it is inconceivable that he would
have
been able to secure permission to use the works of widely respected
scholars for the four edited works which followed Why I am Not a
Muslim
(which you don`t mention). This includes What the Koran Really Says,
The
Origins of the Koran, and The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. And
surely, if his work was based on malevolence as you claim, this would
have
been mentioned in the recent Times Literary Supplement article by
Oxford
University`s Chase Robinson. In fact, this does not happen, and
Warraq`s
work is praised for the positive contribution to Islamic renewal we
believe it is. Mr. Warraq has every right to reject his former Muslim
beliefs and to express his dissenting views. Surely Christians,
Hindus,
and Jews have the right to believe or not-in democratic societies. Why
should not Muslims be permitted freedom of conscience, a human right?

Surely it is unfair to look for condemnations of American foreign
policy,
or Christian and Jewish triumphalism in Warraq`s work. His books are
about
the foundations of Islam, a different subject entirely. We would seek
in
vain for observations on the aesthetic trends of German art in your
professional writing, but only because we would be looking in the
wrong
place for such material. And incidentally, much of the material you
say
you can`t find in Warraq`s work is dealt with elsewhere. For instance
the
issue of secularism in Malaysia was aired in Free Inquiry, (Vol. 23,
No.
3, p. 54), as are many strong criticisms of the United States` foreign
policy.

The work Ibn Warraq is doing, just like the work you are doing, is
invaluable to the ongoing project of encouraging a reformation of
Islam.
Ibn Warraq is no more motivated by a hatred of Islam than you are.
And if
you disagree with him on his assessment of Edward Said, well take the
issue up with our blessing. But we see no reason to ``consider
carefully
who [the] Council embraces as a humanist`` or to ``confront
those whose
actions undermine the foundations of humanism.`` Humanism is about
encouraging the spirit of inquiry, not shutting it down. Hopefully
this
dispute can run its course as a legitimate academic dispute over a
thinker`s legacy and not descend into a series of personal
animosities.

Sincerely yours,

-Paul Kurtz
Chairman

---

Paul Kurtz, Chairman
Center for Inquiry
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, NY 14226
(716) 636-1425 ext. 201

And PM,

Have you looked at your and genewilder`s flour`s post?

Idiot.

genewilder`s flour,

We`ve learned more than you can ken...(figures)...for example, we`ve learned that third rate talent bite off the style of writers they are mistaken they can throw down with. You and your evil stepsisters are functionaries...derivative...you couldnt even come up with an original structure to argue with my posts...and that just scratches the surface of it....and then you expect me to waste my time on you?

But you can really impress the nine years old...some of them, anyway...

re. MissIntellectualDishonesty who’s now losing it completely:
Got you to play, didn`t I? J
Its really pathetic that you have to invent additional nicks to create a cheering squad
No, not for a cheering squad.. just to help expose your vacuity...which I did. Face it!
``Why dont you bring your arguments to unplugged?”
Hey.. you can just as easily evade them right here.. you already have.. ALL my arguments are summed up in three words: Bruce, Bawer and Where.
But you know, hon, I reeeally reeealy haven’t got time for any more of your stupid word games, so you’ll excuse me if I need go give time to some more ‘minor’ things in life now.
TaTa!

P.S. What question did you have for Willder in your last post to him/her anyway?

Okay.. so what have we learnt from all this??
hmmm.. nothing really... except..
Don`t mess with Superior Intellect from the Motherland!`` LOL!!!

PuYu,

What ``point``? Can you explain what point pm has made?

Jeez, the iq on this board has plummeted past belief....one idiot after another...

and PM,

Its really pathetic that you have to invent additional nicks to create a cheering squad...except for HA!HA!HA! Sahib...and his support should say something about his mental state....

but...no answer for my post, huh?

genewilderflour/pm,

Boy, you really told me, didnt you? I dont think you were able to convince anyone past your tiny little...but, I guess its much easier to impress minors that way...

Why dont you bring your arguments to unplugged?

Samina, honey… for someone like yourself who often demands explanations, and – LOL!—even summaries of passages from interactors, you sure are very stingy when it comes to the giving part – or at least when it apparently puts you in a corner. No, you don’t have to answer “every question every interactor” poses, but honey, when you accuse someone as blatantly as you did, and when you throw challenge at “anyone” (think Bruce Bawer”), well, some of us not-so-intellectual folks think it it simply behooves you to reply. Hey, you don’t have to be an ‘intellectual” like yourself, (however crummy!) to recognize intellectual (dis)honesty.
Comprende, senora?
As for the suggestions as to what I should do with my “new buddies”, honey, I seriously think you’ve got some issues.
PM may have played mind games with you that I might not think the best of, but in the end, he sure got you to sure a side of yourself that you probably need to show to your shrink.
So long, hon!

Re. “Secondly, there are points of reference and knowledge that I cede are not only MY expertise. Sure I could answer Bruce`s question-but there are interactors who could do a better job at it.”
Can anyone spell “Cop-out”? No? How about “Fish” and “Barrel”?

“Trying to compare Israel and Palestine to pedophillia...now thats some self serving shite.”
Ahhh! The sheer splendour of serious issues displayed for all to see”

---

Puyu,
Hmmm. Ok.. think you’re right. She’s, after all, not at all like this when nobody’s asking her questions and she’s the one giving all the homework.
Yeah, I’ll tell my Widle friend to lay off of her too!

Finally, I hope that freak that you are defending is spending time working for children rights and programs that protect them, and not just claiming interest in them in because that`s how he gets his rocks off.

Honey, don’t forget to take your pulpit with you when leaving, `lright?

GeneWilderFlower,

Why do I have to answer EVERY question EVERY person poses on this board? What kind of logic is that? Esp. since I am one of the few people who have gone out of their way to keep bringing the discussion back to the Said`s text? Secondly, there are points of reference and knowledge that I cede are not only MY expertise. Sure I could answer Bruce`s question-but there are interactors who could do a better job at it. I dont pretend unlike some of the name droppers here. Nor do I have to jump to that perv`s shrieks...

Finally, I hope that freak that you are defending is spending time working for children rights and programs that protect them, and not just claiming interest in them in because that`s how he gets his rocks off. Trying to compare Israel and Palestine to pedophillia...now thats some self serving shite.

But, hey, perhaps you can join you new buds on this board for drinks. And dont forget to bring your 9 year old niece or nephew...love IS a many splendored thing....

Dear PM
nowthat you have made your point you can spare the lady!
:-)

Dear oh dear!
Looks like everyone`s caught on to the games literary people play. Could this be the boycott I suggested?
...wait and see....

saminasha: dont let wildwoman and PM confuse you. they have no understanding of the philosophico-emotional interactive dynamics that occur between expialidocious globular cybernetics and califragilistic neutro-binary pulsars as viewed through Kierkegaard`s existentialism as modified by Manichaeanistic dualism. :-)

kidding aside. You remain one of the more reasonable posters on chowk (of course, that is just my view), although I think you slipped badly this time in trying to defend the indefensible. We are all allowed one or two slips on chowk, I think.

Wow, Wilde(wo?)man!
Couldn`t have done a better job myself! Gee, u on vacation too? :-)

Wilderflower:

Damn, I am impressed. Are you new to Chowk or is this just a new nick?

(Bowing and Scraping) ;-)

ROUND UP:
Warning: SaminaSha.. I make no pretense to neutrality here, so u might just want to skip this one.

PM: Been reading through the interacts of the Gay Marriage board, and PM, I can see from where Saminasha is coming on this one. Don’t get me wrong though… it’s clear you didn’t bring up the issue on this board, though you did, as you said, “gently prod” her to consider the implications of her own suggestions viz intellectual integrity.

So, anyway, here’s what really happens on an intellectually heavy day and a half on chowk then:

1. in #18 SaminaSha waxed eloquent on intellectual honesty: What are our responsibilities in OUR understanding of the various positions around political issues?…
   6. What initiative should WE take in educating ourselves in an intellectually honest manner about a controversial issue? What does doing so entail? Why dont we? Why do we?


2. in #74 SaminaSha posted a passage from a Bruce Bawer essay that she likened to “shooting fish in a barrel”, and invited all-comers to do just that. (no-one actually did, as it turned out)


3. In #60, PM wrote her, saying: “re. #50 and #18 Saminasha: Samina, i think your questions are pertinent. I trust you have yourself given sufficient thought to #6 lately”


4. in #74, she wrote, again referring to the Bruce Bawer passage “I am hoping that Mantolives or some other able minded will be able to address [it]”


5. in #98, in a rather arrogant manner, Saminasha ‘recounted’ the happenings on a typical “intellectually heavy day on chowk.” This seems to have pi$$ed a lot of people off, including PM, on whose doorstep she lay the charge of “[bringing] up his child love agenda, as usual, though nobody was asking”


6. in various posts thereafter, PM poked, prodded and all but strangled Saminasha to show where he had done that. Saminasha declined to oblige.


7. in #112, PM took up Saminasha’s invite for someone to shoot the fish that was Bruce, but an honest critique revealed that there was nothing in Bruce’s passage that supported Saminasha’s claims of Orientalism”. In particular, PM pointed out that Bruce had being very careful to qualify, not generalize, which in fact, is a lot more than can be said even for Said himself. Bascically, PM turned the tables on Saminasha, using her own discourse to do so. (ouch! That musta hurt!)


8. Again, no response from Saminasha. (This was getting to be standard mode of ‘response’)


9. next 50-60 posts, PM resorted to some pretty childish--though wholly enjoyable-- taunting posts, basically asking Saminasha to justify her statements. SaminaSha felt she could continue to ignore… and PM showed uncanny tenacity (good ‘ol Paki doggedness?)


10. in #151, did address PM, but only to recommend a long cold shower. NO answer to his quite legitimate questions in sight.


11. PM’s doggedness took on new dimensions until…


12. ..after posting some stuff to Fuzair, that, as PM pointed out, had NOTHING to do with what Fuzair had debated, and still less to do with a question he’s asked her to address, …


13. …in #181, Samina finally gave in to superior psychology, and while not providing anything near a credible justification to PM contention that she had lied (and still steering well clear of any mention of Brace Bawer and Orientalism), she basically let on on her failure to apply her lecture on intellectual responsibility.


14. where it REALLY mattered—on matter with which she was emotionally comfortable. So much for all the high-sounding tripe about inteelctual responsibility and honesty. She wrote: “If I am part of the oppressive hegemony and their binaries in this particular case, so be it”, revealing her essential vacuity, for all the big words and ideas she leaves strewn around this site.

What a difference a day makes!!

``Someone seems to be having a thirty six hour temper tantrum on this board. ``
Sure beats 48 hours of dishonest evasion of issues when confronted!

re. #189: How generous we are with info that doesn`t expose our essential vacuity!

re. ``and now I am waiting for you to deny that you are not in your convoluted way trying to point out that adult relationships are a kind of oppressive hegemony.``
No, duh! Ignoring the convoluted sentence structure for now-- didn;t your HS teacher tell you to be more careful using double negatives!-- the point would more likely be that the power dicourse is only one of many through which the area of sexuality may be discussed.
But for all your wont to cite Fouccault, you wouldn`t recognize this, if hit on the head by tome of Heidegger, coz, self-reflection, in this instance, challenges your lovely, safe schemas.
Now put that tail between your legs and get right along!

Plats,

Sorry for the delay in response. Someone seems to be having a thirty six hour temper tantrum on this board.

Students are not only learning about the technical and operational aspects of computers, (i.e. the makeup of a single computer, networks, programs) but also issues of theory and practice. For example, my class will be assigned Ester Dyson essays, discuss the digital divide and literacy for communities who have little access to computer/internet tech as compared with middle and upper classes. At one point, students may discuss the kinds of subcultures that exist in cyber space and what functions they serve to society. Finally, students will think about identity in cyberspace-how one may alter/change/role play identity and what larger implications this practice has.

And sticking very much to the topic of the board, why is it that Bruce is a bigger bigot than Ed Said? Samina obviously will not answer (because she simply CANNOT), but are there no other takers??
Guess not!
NEXT!!

SaminaTL,
Not that I even want an answer from you anymore, knowing I`d have to read through 50 lines to find nothing of value anyway, but if you think your #181 explains the statement you made in #98 (which I repeat here: ``PM used the board to promote his child love agenda, as usual, although no one was asking.``) then lady, you`ve really got some issues with Intellectual honesty. You see, nobody asked you for your opinion on child-adult relationships on this board. Plain and simple. No amount of high falutin PoMo discourse can hide that very simple fact.
Now, I hope that you can keep a promise and not address me in future. You see, frankly my dear, I don`t give a damn about seeing any more kaka discourses and worse explanations from two-bit social theorists and literary critics, who haven`t got the intellectual honesty to underpin any worthy arguments they might have anyway.
So yes, I feel gratified that I teased out (not cajoled, and certainly not begged) an answer from you. It actually disappoints, because no one likes fallen idols, but hey... like someone said here, the Truth is more important.

re. #182 by plats8
``comp science``?!? Who knows!! It`s all part of a kaka discourse anyway, designed to divert attention form the real questions raised, which some ppl have a special talent for pirouetting around to avoid.
You wanna put twenty bucks on the table too? Bets are still open!

re. ``now I am waiting for you to deny that you are not in your convoluted way trying to point out that adult relationships are a kind of oppressive hegemony.``
Talk about things convoluted!!! ;-)

Chowkstaff: How is it that MissIntellectualDishonesty gets to have her say on a matter to which my responses are rejected?? How fair is that??

The ``comp science`` being mentioned in the last two posts by PM and Samina do not
refer to Computer Science by any chance, does it ? It seems a bit out of place, clubbed
together with Political Science and Sociology.

Fuzair:
Should I give you my address now or later (so you can mail the cheque/$20)?
;-)

Chowk Staff and board readers,

My apologies for this digression. Please be assured that it is my last correspondence with this interactor.

PM,

Begged, cajoled, demanded and basically whipped yourself up into a hysterical froth worthy of a Julia Childean mousse. Heres your post:

``...Funny how some ppl can find endless time and bandwidth to `defend honor`, but not a word when confronted with evidence that challenges their notion of `truth` in some controversial area-- especially if the evidence should somehow put their own agenda and discourse in an unfavorable light...``

and now I am waiting for you to deny that you are not in your convoluted way trying to point out that adult relationships are a kind of oppressive hegemony.

For the record PM, and you`d best keep this post under your pillow because this is the last bone I throw to you, I UNDERSTAND that adults have initiated children into relationships the moment anyone could coin the phrase ``power imbalance`` and I still dont agree with it. Nor am I in any mood to argue with you about it. If I am part of the oppressive hegemony and their binaries in this particular case, so be it. I`m with those dreaded gays and lesbians who are capable of having relationships with adults and do so.

If you dont like it, tough shite. Now move the freak on.

SmainaTL,
I think you`ve amply demostrated your shamlessness and hypocrisy for all to see. So I won`t bother trying to eke some honourable action out of you anymore. (Unless I have another day with absolutely nothing to do again) and I will leave you to continue hiding your emptiness behind your kaka discourses, which of course, don`t mean a thing without a modicum of intellectual honesty to back them up.

Chowkstaff: How is a completely diversionary discourse on the intersections of literature and literary theory with topics being studied in the poli sci, psych, sociology, comp science, composition and history courses any more relevant to this board than the subject of paedophilia?

Or do TAhmed, WilderFlower and I have to word our discourse in grotesque verbalism like ``single disciplinariness`` (whatever was wrong with `one perspective`??) that essentially say nothing new, to have our posts sound erudite enough to have them posted here? Maybe ``Paedophila in a multi-discplinary, cross-cultural and eclectic psychological pespective`` might be more amenable to print here??

Fuzair, are you gonna fall for it??
...as we wait with bated breath....

Chowkstaff: How is a completely diversionary discourse on the intersections of literature and literary theory with topics being studied in the poli sci, psych, sociology, comp science, composition and history courses any more relevant to this board than the subject of paedophilia?

Or do TAhmed, WilderFlower and I have to word our discourse in grotesque verbalism like ``single disciplinariness`` (whatever was wrong with `one perspective`??) that essentially say nothing new, to have our posts sound erudite enough to have them posted here? Maybe ``Paedophila in a multi-discplinary, cross-cultural and eclectic psychological pespective`` might be more amenable to print here??

SmainaTL,
I think you`ve amply demostrated your shamlessness and hypocrisy for all to see. So I won`t bother trying to eke some honourable action out of you anymore. (Unless I have another day with absolutely nothing to do again) and I will leave you to continue hiding your emptiness behind your kaka discourses, which of course, don`t mean a thing without a modicum of intellectual honesty to back them up.

Fuzair, are you gonna fall for it??
...as we wait with bated breath....

Fuzair,

You need to be a little clearer here. On one hand you admit that there are certain theories that you agree with, having been exposed to Derrida, Foucault, etc-, and on the other you claim that the social/liberal sciences take things too far. Can you give a specific example of this?

The reason I ask is that I am having precisely the opposite experience in the program I`m teaching in. This program is at a CUNY school that serves many working class, immigrant and adult students. I teach in two blocks-one is an honors section and the other is a remedial skills section. The first block consists of a contemporary Poli Sci course on Russia, General Psych, a Literary Genres course (mine), an American history course, a writing course (Composition Theory) and a study seminar. The second block consists of a (Composition Theory) writing course, a Sociology course on contemporary American issues, a Computer Science course and a Literary Genres course.

I have been working with the profs of these two blocks and we have found many intersections in which literature and literary theory has intersected with topics being studied in the poli sci, psych, sociology, comp science, composition and history courses. The program itself is challenging the idea of singular disciplinariness-and has been acknowledged as one of the best in the country. The idea of interdisciplinariness is one that is at the crux of post modern theory, and people like Said were instrumental in its beggining practice. Any comments?

re. Fuzair:
This is precious... you write a fantastic 3,000 word exposition in #158, and >SaminaTL comes back with #163!!!
Ah the joys of beholding Intellectual Integrity from such proximity!
To SmainaTL, you write: ``I haven`t seen you say that these are the factual errors Ibn Warraq (or any other Said critic) has made. Therefore, his criticism of Said is invalid. Please do get back to me on the NYT obituary.
Twenty bucks says she won`t get back to you on that one. (Which, to prove a point, she of course, will, now) ;-)
rgds,
PM
P.S. Good to see there are still scholars like you around who can explain a subject without being so ambiguous or lost-in-their-own-discourses so as to (deliberately?) confuse the reader as much as they themselves have been confused!

re. Chowkstaff objection.

Quite right! Sorry.

Now, if Samina could only actually stick to topics she brings up here, instead of dishonourably running with her tail behind her legs, none of this would`ve happened.

So let`s hear it now... where is Bruce any more of a bigot, than, say, Said himself, for claiming that ``a substantial number of Moslems`` are given to the not so firendly stuff he mentions?

Any takers?? Manto?

This is the second article this week in which discussions have digressed from the article subject matter. This is misuse of the interact space and we will be rejecting further replies of such nature.

If you wish to have off-subject discussions please take them to the off-the-wall unplugged forum.

Chowk Staff

TAhmed. ref. 169:
Ahmed, my claim that you overreacted has nothing to do with what actually PM does or
does not do. PM may be a real child molestor for all we know, or someone who has no erotic interest whatsover in children but is just out to create a hullabulloo here on chowk.
The point is, going strictly with what PM wrote, which is after all all we can go on, it is incredible that you take the 15-second episode he mentions (which now even you agree *could* have been initiated by the boy) as proof that he is an unrepentent child molestor, and causing ``physical`` harm to his students.
This has nothing to do with whether you agree with the U.S statuotory rape laws or not. Even the most zealous prosecutor would not be able to get a conviction based on the ``evidence`` provided.
Your repeated unwarranted reamarks about US law (Did any this happen in the US???) is another matter altogether. Perhaps it is one you might discuss with someone in a closer relationship to yourself.

re. #170 by tahmed32
PM #162 I have no further comments.
That`s cool. We`re all entitled to our views and positions.
I just wonder, why do you keep brinigng up the US laws? Are they the be all and end all of Jurisprudence? Like I said, it`s silly, `cause I could just as easily bring up European laws. And what do we prove?? Nothing. Nada! Except, maybe that laws, andthe ideas on which they are based, are viewed differently in different parts of the world.
I wonder if you would be so apt to cite US laws if tomorrow there was a rap on the door from Homeland Security thugs.
Yeah, yeah, i know.. This is not 1942, and you`re not Japanese-American.. but food for thought, no?

PM, re. boycott:
Can`t say I`m the most honorable person around, but anyway, Aye, aye!

Yaar how has this discussion on Edward Said turned into one on PM and paedophilia? TAhmed why don`t you write an article on PM`s alleged paedophilia and take your fight there...ajeeb log haiN

wildeflower #164 You are entitled to your views when you write ``but it would certainly seem that PM was seduced by the boy``. As I wrote to PM, this would nevertheless be considered pedophiliac behavior and statutory rape on his part by US courts.

I happen to believe that US law is correct in holding the adult, not the child, responsible in such cases. If you think this is an overreaction, then that is your view and I have no further comments.

PM #162 I have no further comments.

WidlerFlower:
you write: ``as PM eloquently writes, ``a monster in every man`s penis``. ``
Actually, i was quoting a much more gifted author than myself there...Shandana Minhas. You shouldread some ofher older articles. She has a section here. Find it on the main page... ``Jinn and Tonic``.
And thanks... Glad someone here can see through Miss Intellectual Integrity Herself`s dishonourable evasionary tactics. T othink that this broad might be lecturing to students on intellectual integrity!!! Damn!!
And yes, the law interests me, but I`m happy in my little coccoon as sixth-grade teacher.

Could I request all honourable chowkies to consider a boycott of Samina until she address the matter in #166?
Well, just give a think, will ya? this is not quite asking for chowk to install blockers, after all.
rgds,
PM

re. Saminasha #159:
Terming my requests that you justify your statements as a game I`m playing may be a convenient, if futile, way to save some face.
However, in case you`re actually suffering from PoMo-induced amnesia, let me clue you in, honey:
You wrote, in #98: ``PM used the board to promote his child love agenda, as usual, although no one was asking.``
Now, hon, prior to that post, I had post all of fourposts on this board. So, it really shouldn`t be too dfficult to point out where I did what you claim I did.
Failing a reply or an apology (and there still remains the matter of Bruce`s passage, btw), I will henceforth refer to you as SaminaTheLiarWhoStillHasTheGalltoSpeakofHonorandIntellectualIntegrity.
heck no, that`s too long. Samina the Lair woud work juat fine.
Oh, and rest assured, the moniker wil be followed by a hotlink to this very post each time.
Gee I do love vacation time!!!

TAhmed ref. 155:
Ahmed, I don`t think PM has denied authorship of the article (Have you, PM?), so why bring that up?
I guess the part of his essay that troubles you is ``Even before Nomi one day sat himself on my lap facing me, groin on groin, and proceeded with repeated thrusting movements, did my notions of a ‘mature’ love, bereft of jealousy, fall casualty to a newfound appreciation of the romantic.``
Now, I don`t know, but it would certainly seem that PM was seduced by the boy. I have read enough literature (thank you, PM!) to know that that is not at all uncommon for boys to do these sort of thinds. Besides, there is nothing in the passage to suggest that PM encouraged this behaviour. And PM mentions in the interact that that episode lasted all of 15 seconds. Now, could it be that you actually think they had their pants off? And PM, did you?? You have repeatedly calimed that PM`s actions were motivated by a desire for the pleasure of ejaculation? This does not square with PM`s claim, in the essay, that his all his future relationships have ``not drifted into the physical realm-- and not for want of opportunity either.``
I do wonder, Ahmed sahib, whether you have not falen victim to an overactive imagination!
You also quoted PM thus: ``... Last year, to my almost apologetic query on how he feels about the time we shared together, he responded with the same spontaneity I had fallen in love with, “burra muzza aya tha``...``
Once again, Ahmed, strictly going with all that PM has written, especially his quite superb exposition of the `erotic` (``full of possibilities, of the unkown`` etc.) I`d have to say that you have chosen to see, as PM eloquently writes, ``a monster in every man`s penis``. In fact, you seem to see a penis first in every man`s (or at least in this man`s) heart.
While I maintain serious qualms about the issue of adult-child sexual encounters (though it`s interesting to see that the same is not a big deal at all in many European countries-- food for thought?), I must thank PM for bringing up this issue in such a cogent, and yes, honest, manner.
And I regret to inform you, Ahmed sahib, that you have terribly over-reacted in a way most unbecoming the rationalist you normally are.--
WildeLover

Looks like PM has really got Samina Sha in a corner here. My bet is that Ms. Sha will simply decide to ignore the fact that she`s been makng false claims and generally made a fool of herself on the Bruce Lane quotation.
PM, you really SHOULD have been a lawyer. Damn, you`re good!

Fuzair,

Are you writing about the feminization of the East by Orientalist scholarship? There are many contemporary examples of this-the last most obvious manifestation of this was a cartoon drawing of American soldiers loading missiles which had messages like ``Bend over, Taliban`` inscribed on them. This cartoon was transmitted over the AP about a year ago.

TAhmed:
``I have seen grown men break down and cry on TV when recollecting their experience years ago as children at the hands of pedophiliac priests.``
Yes, but you would never see the grown men who DON`T break down and cry over their pedophilic relationships, or indeed, speak postively about them, now would you?!?
`Guess you`re unaware that in the Land of the Free, it is actually a punishable crime to speak favourably of pedophilic relationships you were in as a `child`. Yes, really!! First Amendment ki ma ki chut!
And then, have you ever wondered why you wouldn`t find men in, say Holland, (I know you would have problems with Pakistan) making asses of themselves on public TV this way?

Fuzair:

BTW, what is your background? I am curious. I assume you are an academic of some sort with a degree in one of the social sciences (not Econ!) or the humanities.

NahiN bay.....neither an academic, nor in the social sciences. MaiN seedha saadha aadmi hooN beh.

Will reply to your other points as I get time.

PM,

I have to admit, I just dont care about the info you are demanding, and guess what, I dont have to play your games....

later.

Tahmed Sahib,

I`m afraid I`ve wasted too much time trying to reason with you. Clearly, it is impossible considering your prejudices. Salam.


MNIPhirsay, Fuzair, Mantolives,

I was going to post another excerpt from an essay entitled Beauty, Politics and Cultural Otherness by Patrick Colm Hogan from a Comparative Lit collection of essays entitled Literary India, but I think I`ll hold off on it. Fuzair, I need to know what was your understanding of Orientalism, in your own words. Thank you.

Mantolives,

Is Dr. Davis still around? If I am thinking of the Middle Eastern Dept. scholar, he was getting a bit on in age when I was at Rutgers. Btw, have you studied with any Palestinian or Indian profs at Rutgers? I might know some who were grad students back then!

Re: my polemics. You wouldn`t be the first one to accuse me of getting a bit carried away occasionally [;-)]and I do plead guilty to the charge. However, in my defence, I will say that it is one thing to make these kinds of statements in a forum like this one (essentially a couple of people talking informally) and its something else entirely to do so in the fora Said used. Or do you disagree that there is a huge difference between what/where I said and Said said?

Aaah, epistemology. I agree that Said`s point was to attempt to expose the biases, preconceptions, hidden purposes, and what not of ``Orientalists`` and to further argue that by demonizing Arabs/Islam/Muslims, to provide an intellectual underpinning to Western Imperialism. However, my point in giviing you the negative reviews of his book (btw, not all of his critics are negative about the book: as I said, one basically apologized for pointing out its errors) is that Said is apparently quite selective in which ``Orientalist`s`` work he uses. I refer you to my post #111 on the earlier Said thread.

I`ll reproduce a portion of what I wrote:

---

Malcolm H. Kerr (review of Orientalism International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4. (Dec., 1980), pp. 544-547) argues that
“[Orientalism is spoiled by overzealous prosecutorial argument in which Professor Said, in his eagerness to spin too large a web, leaps at conclusions and tries to throw everything but the kitchen sink into a preconceived frame of analysis. In charging the entire tradition of European and American Oriental studies with the the sins of reductionism and caricature, he commits precisely the same error.”

Kerr then goes on to list some 60 scholars, mainly French, British and American but quite a few influential Oriental ones as well, that Said deliberately ignores since they do not fit into his neat little “Orientalist” paradigm. Even I, a complete idiot according to you, had heard of a few of these “missing 60,” Hourani, Hitti, Dekmejian, Evans-Pritchard, Abu-Lughoud, Geertz, and Rodinson.

“Surely as a group,” Kerr argues, “they have exerted as much intellectual influence as Said’s select roster of ogres, and surely they have not been altogether brainwashed by the tradition.” Kerr then goes on to ask, why has Said included authors of travelogues and novels set in the Middle East but refused to include these genuine experts on the subject?

Hmmmm. What could the reason be? Is it that if Said had really done a comprehensive study of “Orientalism,” he would have found scant evidence for his thesis?

---

My point here is that Said would appear to be guilty of, at best, very selective research. His book really wouldn`t have sold as well or been as influential if he had titled it ``Bernard Lewis is a Big Fat Idiot,`` would it?

Now, I am going by my own personal experience in two major US research universities and a couple of smaller places but its pretty clear who are the people who REALLY like Said: people in the humanities and PoliSci/Soc/Anthro who have a certain mindset and worldview that I personally do not completley agree with. However, unlike the vast majority of them, I did make an attempt to read outside my own narrow graduate field (economics, but I dislike excessive formalism--really not a theorist) and take a couple of graduate coures in Political Theory and what not. What I saw did not impress me (before you dismiss this as my not knowing enough about the fields, I was an Econ/PoliSci double major with basically a History minor). You can`t hang around PoliSci/IR departments in US research universities without being exposed to enough nonsense to choke a large whale.

I know a heck of a lot more about Foucault, Derrida, PostModernism, deconstruction, etc, than they know about International Trade or Economic Development or Labour Markets or Tax Policy or Macroeconomic policy and if they can comment on these, I can certainly comment on their pet theories. Yes, I know, this is a pretty stupid argument but, what the heck, they are stupid people. So, I do understand something. I don`t dismiss Foucault out of hand. We are all, to a certain extent, prisoners of our own discourse, all criminals are anarchists and power-relationships are important BUT I don`t lose my mind when someone writes about the etymology of thawra and read all sorts of nonsense that simply isn`t there.

I know very little about Ibn Warraq, other than what one picks up on the Web, and I am not particularly impressed by him. However, he did seem to do a pretty good job on Said.... I didn`t even know he had a journal, so you`ll have to pass on your response to him yourself. Unlike him and Hamidm, I`ve even defended Islam on Chowk (not a very passionate defense, more on the lines of ``Hey, why pick just on Islam? There are equal absurdities in every religion! We don`t let these absurdities condemn Christianity or Judaism). The point is not what kind of a person is Ibn Warraq but is what he says about Said correct?

I haven`t seen you say that these are the factual errors Ibn Warraq (or any other Said critic) has made. Therefore, his criticism of Said is invalid. Please do get back to me on the NYT obituary. BUT it seems that Said has said many, many, many things like that so I doubt it is taken out of context.

I`ll repeat one I had posted earlier:

---

“The answer, I think, is that books like Miller`s [God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting From a Militant Middle East] are symptomatic because they are weapons in the contest to subordinate, beat down, compel and defeat any Arab or Muslim resistance to U.S.-Israeli dominance. Moreover, by surreptitiously justifying a policy of single-minded obduracy that links Islamism to a strategically important, oil-rich part of the world, the anti-Islam campaign virtually eliminates the possibility of equal dialogue between Islam and the Arabs, and the West or Israel. To demonize and dehumanize a whole culture on the ground that it is (in Lewis`s sneering phrase) enraged at modernity is to turn Muslims into the objects of a therapeutic, punitive attention.” (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=19960812&s=said)

---

Since this is more than one line, I doubt it is ``taken out of context`` or had its meaning twisted. As I said before, I don`t necessarily disagree with much of Said`s basic points, I just think that he carries them to the level of absurdity.

As far as Daniel Pipes is concerned, I wouldn`t believe him if he told me that Monday followed Sunday. Its a travesty that he has been appointed to the US Institute of Peace`s governing board.

BTW, what is your background? I am curious. I assume you are an academic of some sort with a degree in one of the social sciences (not Econ!) or the humanities.

Regards.

Samina,
Got you on HAHAHA! Sahib. My apologies! (take the cue, lady!)
Now, while advocating a long shower, have you still refused to siply tell me where I brought up child love without being asked?
And about five posts and timings... honey, am jsut seeing if you can take it as ell as you dish it out.
tick tock...tick tock...
Oh, and I don`t think it should take too much of your precious time to tell us what part of Bruce`s ``a substantial number of Moslems`` you had difficulty understanding either.
tick tock..tick tock...

mni:

you are missing forest for trees here. greatness of edward said lies in his eloquent, passionate and inspirational defense of values of truth, justice and non-tribalism especially at a time when you almost feel ashamed and almost like a khussy to even say these words. powerful people with a nefarious agenda hated said for being so single-minded on this and tried to discredit his work to discredit his broader agenda. i think best way to take on his detractors is to constantly emphasize his broader message.

pm:

if pakis could think rationally and without prejudice, country would not be a such a paghal khana would it?

Wildflower #150 The second link has the article. I found it a bit confusing myself because it shows up on HTML code, so what I have done is cut and paste below the second part of it which has PM as the writer, and where he is I think quite explicit about the fact that he had sexual relations with the boy:

``A Personal Account

I haven’t alwaysbeen a boylover; not consciously anyway.... It wasn’t until I was in my mid-twenties, and privately tutoring 11-year-old Nomi that I was awakened to the deeper levels of my attraction to boys. ... Even before Nomi one day sat himself on my lap facing me, groin on groin, and proceeded with repeated thrusting movements, did my notions of a ‘mature’ love, bereft of jealousy, fall casualty to a newfound appreciation of the romantic. And well before he got physical in any sense of the word, did he have my heart to do with as he wished.

... Last year, to my almost apologetic query on how he feels about the time we shared together, he responded with the same spontaneity I had fallen in love with, “burra muzza aya tha”.

...PM``

PM did not deny this article when Roohi originally brought it up (see the second link I provided), and indeed still defends the practice of adults having relations with boys (per his post referrring me to literature on the subject).

I am providing the above information since you said you could not find it. If PM wishes to deny that he wrote this, he is on this board and can do it now.

TAhmed,

You`re smart enough to know, with some effort of course, that equating my posting of literature (actual, scientific studies) in defense of my position (which at present is a case of your-word-against-mine) Is NOT the same as Samina`s plea that you read ten books of Said`s before you a can pass judgement on anything he has said in one essay. Please think through it. In one case you have someone asing you to dig deeper to justify yourself, in the other, well, you just have a classic case of evasion-through-obfuscation.

re. The `proof` you cited...
a) I don`t deny that some priests simply abused some children (let me clue you in to the numbers, though. If you`d read the articles I posted-- all by non-pedophilic researchers, i hasten to add-- you`d find that shild sexual abuse was commited far more often by non-pedophiles than by pedophiles. So, you will have no trouble finding true victims of such abuse.)

b) If that specatacle of a grown man crying was all the proof you needed, you might be surprised to read about the Saranic Rites child abuse hoaxes of the eighties and the Repressed Memory Syndrome `hoax` of the 80`s and 90`s. If you`re still disinclined to read articles, here`s a summary: `victims` acutally `remembered``, in court, with the help of their zealous psychologists, things that happened in their childhood, which were later proved to be impossible. Again, this is not to suggest that people are not abused and harmed, but you have to ask yourself what role the suggestability of `victims` (esp, i repeat, in the Land of the Perpetual Victim) plays in the creation of the `trauma`.

c) Relating experiences of actual cases of abuse to all cases of intergenerational sexual encounters is as jsutified as tarring consensual adult sex with the brush of adult rape.

TAhmed, I might add that gour years ago, when the boylove article was published, I got scathing posts from all and sundry, including temporal, bina, Ferozk, and others not around anymore. However, when all of them actually began to read and debate, their positions were softened, even if none of them can be said to boylove advocates, I think.

One poster put the whole thing succinctly: ``This makes me squelch; but then, the idea that my parents do it makes me squelch too``.

May I again submit that the idea of homosexuality would have made you squelch too thrirty years ago?

And finally, please resist the urge to view my boylove advoacy as the right to rear-end boys. If you`re interested in debate, we`ll take it from there...

PM,

Uh dude....HA!HA!HA! Sahib is a moniker...not nervous laughter....and, why are you addressing five posts to me and timing my responses? Could you perhaps take a long cold shower and chill out?

WilderFlower:
Lawyer? Hell, no... just an ordinary ``inter-pass`` sickened by the idea of government-sanctioned morality.

PM #144 Why do I need a study to tell me that adults should not be having sexual relations with children? If proof was needed: I have seen grown men break down and cry on TV when recollecting their experience years ago as children at the hands of pedophiliac priests.

You refer to the literature on this issue, like Saminasha refers to the literature on that other issue concerning Said. She hides from one reality, you hide from the other.

TAhmed, ref. 141
Ahmed, as mentioned earlier, I have already gone to the link you provided and have read PM`s boylove article that Roohi posted, and the interesting posts by Dost-mittar, AlephNull and of course PM himself. However I find no evidence of what it is you accuse him. I am presently reading--laboriously-- through the interacts of the original essay. Maybe I will find something there.
This much I`ll say for you PM, you sure know how to defend your position, and give us a lot to think about. Or re-think rather. Are you a lawyer by profession or training?
--WildeLover

Oh..on MY refutation of the reviews.

First: Reviews don`t need ``refutation``. I sense this nasty confrontational tone from you which means that this whole discussion is more about you than about Edward Said, and how YOU have him completely figured out.

There is no need for me to write a word of my own if Edward Said himself has addressed -- sometimes in anticipation -- the objections raised to his work. My quotation of his words is indication that I, to a great degree, accept his explanation as valid. (For example, I quoted from Orientalism, where Said explicitly commended Rodinson`s and Geertz`s -- supposedly ignored by his book -- scholarship. )

In the end, Said`s critique is directed towards a ``discourse`` -- itself a word from critical theory jargon -- in Orientalism. Argument over whether this or that scholar should be included, is really about what is necessary to establish the existence and character of a ``discourse``; and hence a matter in the domain of critical theory. I have a feeling that most of Said`s well-meaning critics -- and I am thinking of Malcolm Kerr, Albert Hourani, Maxime Rodinson -- did not really understand him before reacting. Others were driven by political and personal vendetta. But this so far, is just a ``feeling``. I am not even literate in critical theory, let alone well-versed in it. Spurred by this discussion, and a desire to better understand this very difficult book Orientalism I will try to get of critical theory, esp. that of Focoult (sp?). Hopefully those Chowkies well-versed in these discussions would guide me to some useful literature.

fasisal, buddy:
Maybe you misinterpreted my gentle poke. Suffice it now to say that Mahatir`s my man too!
Will I be in Khi around 18-25?!? Oh bhai, coming to this part of the world sucks up my four-months salary. Abb poore paisey wasool karoUNga. Will spend XMas with my folks in Toronto before returning to my beloved Karachi.

Romair,

I thought I was being referred to (indirectly) in your post #134, 3rd (technically 4th) para. If I was bit too prickly, I apologize.

re. faisal:
``...and also i dont know why but this issue is of huge concern in the islamic world.``
Well, part of it is traditional Islamia`s response to injustice (it would eally be cool, though, if the same response were elicited in intra-Islamia conflicts and injustice too).
But to clue you in to another source: last month, my travel agent, while admitting, unsolicitedly, that the Muslim world brings problems upon itself by its failure to condemn the mischief makers, is still sold on the story that 4,000 Jews skipped work on Sep.11. He was absolutely increduluous when I later suggested that there are Jews even in Israel who protest their government`s handling of the Palestine issue. It is no exaggeration to say, that even to this otherwise well-informed guy who is not by a long shot an Islamic fundamentalist, ``Yahoodi loag`` was some monolithic representation of the new evil empire. I hear this strain all the time in my classrooms too... the Yahoodi is the new Commie.