Religion In A Clubby Hole
Parthasarathy B November 21, 2005
#136 Posted by bolta_aaina on November 23, 2005 11:30:25 pm
It would have been much better if you had given your background in your profile. Anyway, I try to talk in a generalised way.
Post No.98-- An athiest is someone.............................beyond reasonable speculation.
If atheists are contended without the existence of God ,well its fine with the Theists. Everyone has its own beliefs and they need to be respected. It is not that atheists are a product of modern science, but many societies had turned towards atheism in the past also. But (an important But here ) it is generally seen that atheism generally moves towards moral degradation because it works on the principle of ``its my life afterall``. It is not always but it does. A god-fearing person is less likely to fall into materialistic virtues. So when the believers see moral decay around them, they blame atheists for it. Of course, they are partly right and partly wrong.
The extra-terrestrial life is beyond the scope of religion. As far as I understand, world religions are silent on it. The ETL is to be explored by science and not by religions. No religion puts taboo in the exploration of ETL.
Post No. 99--While religious fervor ........................... betterment of mankind.
For religions as well as science ,it is important that who is speaking or to whom we are listening to.
A person sitting with four armed bodyguards and talking about religion is as ridiculous as a Pundit, Mullah, Priest or a Granthi speaking about Quantum Mechanics.
Only that person can speak about true religion who is beyond the perception or emotion or whatever so call it, of Life and Death. A truly religious person sees life and death as the part and parcel of the same phenomenon whom is calls God. A person loving his own life and talking about death to others is at best to be ignored, atleast from religion point of view.
Post No.100-The theists .............. cannot be disproved.
If someone is satisfied with the notion of God , let hm remain contended with it. Or prove him wrong. Similarly , a theist has to prove the existence of God to an atheist. There should not be any spark between the two. But, generally it is seen that the atheists redicule the religion. ``Opium of masses``. The atheists do not put their point forward that how the world can be better if religion is not there. Generally, it is said that religion is the cause of major wars. It is not true. The causes of all wars have been purely economic. Though religion has been used as a tool to mobilise the masses for the wars. In earlier times, the wars were fought to increase the land holdings. More land would mean more agriculture, more food, more wood, more animals etc. Later, it turned into natural resources, ores, minerals. Even today, the conflict is purely economic i.e. Oil though religion is being used as a tool.
You have said that you dont believe in Greek Gods, egyptian gods etc and if their existence cannot be disproved, then you have to believe in and worship them. Not at all. The thing is that you can believe in God and still dont believe in any religion. God is a destination and religions are a path to that destination. If one does not agree with the paths, it does not mean that he should disagree with the destination.
Religions through their rites, rituals and practices solidify one’s faith in God. But the rites, rituals etc. are not an end in themselves.
This debate can go on and on. It cannot end in a single sitting. My advise to you is that you have to make their own self-enquiry about the existence or non-existence of God. And be contended with what you have found or realized.
Post No.98-- An athiest is someone.............................beyond reasonable speculation.
If atheists are contended without the existence of God ,well its fine with the Theists. Everyone has its own beliefs and they need to be respected. It is not that atheists are a product of modern science, but many societies had turned towards atheism in the past also. But (an important But here ) it is generally seen that atheism generally moves towards moral degradation because it works on the principle of ``its my life afterall``. It is not always but it does. A god-fearing person is less likely to fall into materialistic virtues. So when the believers see moral decay around them, they blame atheists for it. Of course, they are partly right and partly wrong.
The extra-terrestrial life is beyond the scope of religion. As far as I understand, world religions are silent on it. The ETL is to be explored by science and not by religions. No religion puts taboo in the exploration of ETL.
Post No. 99--While religious fervor ........................... betterment of mankind.
For religions as well as science ,it is important that who is speaking or to whom we are listening to.
A person sitting with four armed bodyguards and talking about religion is as ridiculous as a Pundit, Mullah, Priest or a Granthi speaking about Quantum Mechanics.
Only that person can speak about true religion who is beyond the perception or emotion or whatever so call it, of Life and Death. A truly religious person sees life and death as the part and parcel of the same phenomenon whom is calls God. A person loving his own life and talking about death to others is at best to be ignored, atleast from religion point of view.
Post No.100-The theists .............. cannot be disproved.
If someone is satisfied with the notion of God , let hm remain contended with it. Or prove him wrong. Similarly , a theist has to prove the existence of God to an atheist. There should not be any spark between the two. But, generally it is seen that the atheists redicule the religion. ``Opium of masses``. The atheists do not put their point forward that how the world can be better if religion is not there. Generally, it is said that religion is the cause of major wars. It is not true. The causes of all wars have been purely economic. Though religion has been used as a tool to mobilise the masses for the wars. In earlier times, the wars were fought to increase the land holdings. More land would mean more agriculture, more food, more wood, more animals etc. Later, it turned into natural resources, ores, minerals. Even today, the conflict is purely economic i.e. Oil though religion is being used as a tool.
You have said that you dont believe in Greek Gods, egyptian gods etc and if their existence cannot be disproved, then you have to believe in and worship them. Not at all. The thing is that you can believe in God and still dont believe in any religion. God is a destination and religions are a path to that destination. If one does not agree with the paths, it does not mean that he should disagree with the destination.
Religions through their rites, rituals and practices solidify one’s faith in God. But the rites, rituals etc. are not an end in themselves.
This debate can go on and on. It cannot end in a single sitting. My advise to you is that you have to make their own self-enquiry about the existence or non-existence of God. And be contended with what you have found or realized.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#138 Posted by parthaab on November 24, 2005 12:20:30 am
Re: # 136
Thanks for reading my message. I could, if I were paid to, answer to it, taking one sentence of yours at a time. But, most of the arguments there are just old repeated ones. It does not address the fundamental question : Why (other than the fact that your ma, and probably your grandma too, told you so), do you think god exists?
Thanks for reading my message. I could, if I were paid to, answer to it, taking one sentence of yours at a time. But, most of the arguments there are just old repeated ones. It does not address the fundamental question : Why (other than the fact that your ma, and probably your grandma too, told you so), do you think god exists?
#144 Posted by ballukhan on November 24, 2005 4:24:59 am
Re: # 138
Partha the issues are not regarding the existence or non-existence of the almighty..................even the matters of faith are not issues for intellectual discussion even if they involve belief in the existence of metaphysical entities and things after the life...............the issue that concerns the world community is the USE of religion and faith to fulfil some political agenda.................we know that much of it pertains to a neo-fascist interpretation of the Al-Qaeda variety of political Islam (very much wahabi sunni literalist crap)......................and the solution is pretty much straight forward........isolate these crap mongers..................and we will find these diseased ideologies dissipating from the world in no time..........................................This pretty much means that the moderates should not sympathesize with these diseased minds even if they try to play up their ususal drama of ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` ( I feel Osama Bin Laden cuts a sorry figure before the moderate muslims on the TV screen with his recurrent exhortions on this Islam in danger theme).
read on:
Refrain From Excuses for the Bombers
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
November 23, 2005
Just hours after last July`s suicide attacks in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s advisers were working the phones to arrange an urgent meeting with what they term ``Muslim community leaders``. At the same time, however, the prime minister himself was telling the media that what had happened in London had nothing to do with Islam which was a religion of peace and harmony.
Soon, however, the ``Muslim community leaders`` were sitting across the table from Blair at Downing Street expressing ``Muslim grievances`` that had supposedly led to the suicide attacks. The meeting, followed by other sessions with Blair`s advisers, ended with an invitation by the prime minister to the ``Muslim community leaders`` to prepare a report on ``the deeper causes`` of the London tragedy.
Last week the ``Muslim community leaders`` produced their report. In it they cited two reasons for the tragedy: poverty among British Muslims, and Muslim anger over British foreign policy.
All this is interesting for several reasons.
First, if the London attacks had nothing to do with Islam, as Blair asserted, why invite ``Muslim community leaders`` to discuss it? When Britain was involved in bombing Serbia, to save the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide, Blair did not invite leaders of the Serbian Orthodox community in Britain to discuss matters at Downing Street.
While all the suicide bombers in London were of Muslim extraction their victims also included many Muslims. In fact 15 of the 57 killed in the three attacks were Muslims. In other words the attacks were designed to kill indiscriminately.
But if, contrary to Blair`s assertion, the London attacks did have something to do with Islam then the least that he should do is to say what that is.
By accepting to write the report, the ``Muslim community leaders`` have tacitly agreed that the July bombings did have something to do with Islam. And that, seen from any angle, is a disservice both to Islam and to Britain.
Caught in a cobweb of deceit woven by their own hypocrisy, the British ``Muslim community leaders`` have implicitly agreed that anyone has the right to use Islam as a label for any murderous ideology. At the same time by suggesting that poverty and disagreement on foreign policy were the causes of the suicide attacks, they are putting the British authorities on the wrong track.
The poverty argument as a justification for terrorism is too discredited to merit detailed refutation. Throughout history, terrorists have come from middle class and well-to-do backgrounds. The man who assassinated Caliph Omar was a wealthy Persian pearl merchant. Caliph Osman was assassinated by a group of Qureish aristocrats. Caliph Ali`s murderer was the well-heeled leader of a political faction. Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of Rome`s highest aristocrats. The Narodnik terrorists in Russia, the Anarchists in Central and Western Europe and, more recently, the Red Brigades and the Bader Meinhof terror gangs, all belonged to the upper middle classes.
We see a similar pattern in the recent history of Islamist terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Fedayeen Islam in Iran recruited their assassins from middle class families and were financed by wealthy merchants. The Al Qaida`s central leadership, now disrupted, included at least four millionaires.
The second cause cited by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is even more problematic. To begin with the ``leaders`` cite absolutely no evidence that British Muslims disagree with any aspect of British foreign policy. The reason for this is obvious. British Muslims are as divided on issues of foreign policy as are their non-Muslim fellow citizens.
In any case Britain is a democracy with several political parties representing a rich diversity of views and policies. Any British Muslim opposed to this or that aspect of British foreign policy could join any of the opposition parties or, even, join one of the several anti-Blair wings of the governing Labour Party.
The report produced by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is dangerous because it implies that as long some British Muslims are poor and some British Muslims angry about foreign policy, terrorist attacks would be understandable if not justifiable.
The report creates an ``us and them`` dialectics in which British Muslims see their non-Muslim fellow citizens as ``others``. And from that to treating non-Muslim Britons as the kuffar (infidel), is but a short step.
The only useful contribution that ``Muslim community leaders`` can do is to refrain from furnishing excuses for the terrorists and to hold special sessions to condemn their ideology and put as much blue water between them and other Muslims as possible.
Sadly, the men invited by Blair to help have done the exact opposite.
Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
Partha the issues are not regarding the existence or non-existence of the almighty..................even the matters of faith are not issues for intellectual discussion even if they involve belief in the existence of metaphysical entities and things after the life...............the issue that concerns the world community is the USE of religion and faith to fulfil some political agenda.................we know that much of it pertains to a neo-fascist interpretation of the Al-Qaeda variety of political Islam (very much wahabi sunni literalist crap)......................and the solution is pretty much straight forward........isolate these crap mongers..................and we will find these diseased ideologies dissipating from the world in no time..........................................This pretty much means that the moderates should not sympathesize with these diseased minds even if they try to play up their ususal drama of ``Islam Khatare Mein Hai`` ( I feel Osama Bin Laden cuts a sorry figure before the moderate muslims on the TV screen with his recurrent exhortions on this Islam in danger theme).
read on:
Refrain From Excuses for the Bombers
by Amir Taheri
Gulf News
November 23, 2005
Just hours after last July`s suicide attacks in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s advisers were working the phones to arrange an urgent meeting with what they term ``Muslim community leaders``. At the same time, however, the prime minister himself was telling the media that what had happened in London had nothing to do with Islam which was a religion of peace and harmony.
Soon, however, the ``Muslim community leaders`` were sitting across the table from Blair at Downing Street expressing ``Muslim grievances`` that had supposedly led to the suicide attacks. The meeting, followed by other sessions with Blair`s advisers, ended with an invitation by the prime minister to the ``Muslim community leaders`` to prepare a report on ``the deeper causes`` of the London tragedy.
Last week the ``Muslim community leaders`` produced their report. In it they cited two reasons for the tragedy: poverty among British Muslims, and Muslim anger over British foreign policy.
All this is interesting for several reasons.
First, if the London attacks had nothing to do with Islam, as Blair asserted, why invite ``Muslim community leaders`` to discuss it? When Britain was involved in bombing Serbia, to save the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide, Blair did not invite leaders of the Serbian Orthodox community in Britain to discuss matters at Downing Street.
While all the suicide bombers in London were of Muslim extraction their victims also included many Muslims. In fact 15 of the 57 killed in the three attacks were Muslims. In other words the attacks were designed to kill indiscriminately.
But if, contrary to Blair`s assertion, the London attacks did have something to do with Islam then the least that he should do is to say what that is.
By accepting to write the report, the ``Muslim community leaders`` have tacitly agreed that the July bombings did have something to do with Islam. And that, seen from any angle, is a disservice both to Islam and to Britain.
Caught in a cobweb of deceit woven by their own hypocrisy, the British ``Muslim community leaders`` have implicitly agreed that anyone has the right to use Islam as a label for any murderous ideology. At the same time by suggesting that poverty and disagreement on foreign policy were the causes of the suicide attacks, they are putting the British authorities on the wrong track.
The poverty argument as a justification for terrorism is too discredited to merit detailed refutation. Throughout history, terrorists have come from middle class and well-to-do backgrounds. The man who assassinated Caliph Omar was a wealthy Persian pearl merchant. Caliph Osman was assassinated by a group of Qureish aristocrats. Caliph Ali`s murderer was the well-heeled leader of a political faction. Julius Caesar was murdered by a group of Rome`s highest aristocrats. The Narodnik terrorists in Russia, the Anarchists in Central and Western Europe and, more recently, the Red Brigades and the Bader Meinhof terror gangs, all belonged to the upper middle classes.
We see a similar pattern in the recent history of Islamist terrorism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the Fedayeen Islam in Iran recruited their assassins from middle class families and were financed by wealthy merchants. The Al Qaida`s central leadership, now disrupted, included at least four millionaires.
The second cause cited by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is even more problematic. To begin with the ``leaders`` cite absolutely no evidence that British Muslims disagree with any aspect of British foreign policy. The reason for this is obvious. British Muslims are as divided on issues of foreign policy as are their non-Muslim fellow citizens.
In any case Britain is a democracy with several political parties representing a rich diversity of views and policies. Any British Muslim opposed to this or that aspect of British foreign policy could join any of the opposition parties or, even, join one of the several anti-Blair wings of the governing Labour Party.
The report produced by the ``Muslim community leaders`` is dangerous because it implies that as long some British Muslims are poor and some British Muslims angry about foreign policy, terrorist attacks would be understandable if not justifiable.
The report creates an ``us and them`` dialectics in which British Muslims see their non-Muslim fellow citizens as ``others``. And from that to treating non-Muslim Britons as the kuffar (infidel), is but a short step.
The only useful contribution that ``Muslim community leaders`` can do is to refrain from furnishing excuses for the terrorists and to hold special sessions to condemn their ideology and put as much blue water between them and other Muslims as possible.
Sadly, the men invited by Blair to help have done the exact opposite.
Iranian author Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates.
#140 Posted by bolta_aaina on November 24, 2005 12:41:26 am
Re: # 138
Partha--when you have turned personal, I will speak personal.
Though we are a Hindu family but My dad and mom are both atheists!!!!!!!My dad is no more but my mom is still alive and refuses to believe in God even today. I was also an atheist in my early days. But now i am a firm believer in God. No accident, no illness nothing. God willing my life has been quite comfortable right from the begining.
But, my own self-enquiry or you can say own self-exploration through various religions which I read, various places I went--both religous and otherwise ,made me believe in one thing.. That is, atleast My dad and mom are wrong. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE GOD OTHERWISE WHAT WE ALL SEE CANNOT BE THERE.
May I add here that religous explanation of God with which I agree most is the one given in the Bhagwadgita.
Partha--when you have turned personal, I will speak personal.
Though we are a Hindu family but My dad and mom are both atheists!!!!!!!My dad is no more but my mom is still alive and refuses to believe in God even today. I was also an atheist in my early days. But now i am a firm believer in God. No accident, no illness nothing. God willing my life has been quite comfortable right from the begining.
But, my own self-enquiry or you can say own self-exploration through various religions which I read, various places I went--both religous and otherwise ,made me believe in one thing.. That is, atleast My dad and mom are wrong. THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING LIKE GOD OTHERWISE WHAT WE ALL SEE CANNOT BE THERE.
May I add here that religous explanation of God with which I agree most is the one given in the Bhagwadgita.
#141 Posted by parthaab on November 24, 2005 12:59:36 am
Re: # 140
Its not a personal fight. I dont take you seriously enough to make it one.
Most people learn religion early in childhood from their parents. If,as you claim, you did nt, then you must have had a strong source from within the family. Other than that, you could have joined a religious political party or even be bluffing! I tend to believe the latter.
Lets get back to the original question if that makes you feel a little better : Why do you think god exists?
Its not a personal fight. I dont take you seriously enough to make it one.
Most people learn religion early in childhood from their parents. If,as you claim, you did nt, then you must have had a strong source from within the family. Other than that, you could have joined a religious political party or even be bluffing! I tend to believe the latter.
Lets get back to the original question if that makes you feel a little better : Why do you think god exists?
#145 Posted by parthaab on November 24, 2005 4:59:56 am
Re: # 141
Interesting stiff. But its nothing new. As someone pointed out, Hitler used religion to kill. So did Milosevic. And many many others in history. And even today. OBL too, of course.
Religious fantasy thinking has been trying to clog - at times forcefully - rational thinking, for centuries. Watch the crap written by some religious nutters on not only this, but other threads throught chowk.
Religious extremism is one of the reasons why religion has to be questioned. The other being the question of rationality of course.
Interesting stiff. But its nothing new. As someone pointed out, Hitler used religion to kill. So did Milosevic. And many many others in history. And even today. OBL too, of course.
Religious fantasy thinking has been trying to clog - at times forcefully - rational thinking, for centuries. Watch the crap written by some religious nutters on not only this, but other threads throught chowk.
Religious extremism is one of the reasons why religion has to be questioned. The other being the question of rationality of course.
#150 Posted by ballukhan on November 24, 2005 5:23:00 am
Re: # 145
One more comment on the issue of `rational` thinking................I feel proving or disproving the existence of almighty does not bridge the gulf between the ``IS and ``OUGHT`` ....................no amount of scientific proof on existence of god or his message can make us accept the ``OUGHTS`` unless the fear and deterrence of God`s infinite capacity to punish and bring pain to humans is assumed................
The issues that moderate muslims need to confront today is about political agendas that some global neo-fascists want to impose upon the muslims all over the world and turning them into some puppets in their fascistic mobilization through terror tactics.................we may find it amazing that the riots in France or elsewhere is consolidating the muslim faithfuls........no we are all wrong............ we are mobilizing the world opinion against ourselves..................to think that we would create thousands of palestine and kashmir like pockets of resistence the world over is sheer stupidity and shows the bankruptcy of our leadership......
One more comment on the issue of `rational` thinking................I feel proving or disproving the existence of almighty does not bridge the gulf between the ``IS and ``OUGHT`` ....................no amount of scientific proof on existence of god or his message can make us accept the ``OUGHTS`` unless the fear and deterrence of God`s infinite capacity to punish and bring pain to humans is assumed................
The issues that moderate muslims need to confront today is about political agendas that some global neo-fascists want to impose upon the muslims all over the world and turning them into some puppets in their fascistic mobilization through terror tactics.................we may find it amazing that the riots in France or elsewhere is consolidating the muslim faithfuls........no we are all wrong............ we are mobilizing the world opinion against ourselves..................to think that we would create thousands of palestine and kashmir like pockets of resistence the world over is sheer stupidity and shows the bankruptcy of our leadership......
#147 Posted by ballukhan on November 24, 2005 5:09:54 am
Re: # 145
i think issues on metaphysics, ontologies and realism have all been discussed at length on various topics of Gill....................we should be discussing about political Islam of OBL variety.............................which is another mutant of the good old TNT that is the hall mark of a `good` Paksitani ................
i think issues on metaphysics, ontologies and realism have all been discussed at length on various topics of Gill....................we should be discussing about political Islam of OBL variety.............................which is another mutant of the good old TNT that is the hall mark of a `good` Paksitani ................
#149 Posted by parthaab on November 24, 2005 5:20:17 am
Re: # 146
When religion itself is a form of extreme subversion of thinking, where is the question of one fantasy being better than another?
When the muslim ``media`` was asleep, I wrote on chowk about Modi. Of course, all religions have their defenders and propagadists.
Re: # 147
Bashing other religions - you will find on all chowk threads. Mine is about bashing religion and god itself.
When religion itself is a form of extreme subversion of thinking, where is the question of one fantasy being better than another?
When the muslim ``media`` was asleep, I wrote on chowk about Modi. Of course, all religions have their defenders and propagadists.
Re: # 147
Bashing other religions - you will find on all chowk threads. Mine is about bashing religion and god itself.
#148 Posted by parthaab on November 24, 2005 5:18:50 am
Re: # 146
When religion itself is a form of extreme subversion of thinking, where is the question of one fantasy being better than another?
When the muslim ``media`` was asleep, I wrote on chowk about Modi. Of course, all religions have their defenders and propagadists.
Re: # 147
Bashing other religions - you will find on all chowk threads. Mine is about bashing religion and god itself.
When religion itself is a form of extreme subversion of thinking, where is the question of one fantasy being better than another?
When the muslim ``media`` was asleep, I wrote on chowk about Modi. Of course, all religions have their defenders and propagadists.
Re: # 147
Bashing other religions - you will find on all chowk threads. Mine is about bashing religion and god itself.
#143 Posted by bolta_aaina on November 24, 2005 1:39:10 am
Re: # 141
Why should I be bluffing to you? What for? Come on man.. either be serious or simply forget. Bye
Why should I be bluffing to you? What for? Come on man.. either be serious or simply forget. Bye
#135 Posted by tahmed32 on November 23, 2005 8:59:35 pm
samosa: if it was simply science vs religion, there would be no issue. it is science vs superstition. superstition has already defeated religion, since fear of the unknown (the basis for superstition) has proved a stronger motivating force than love and awe at creation (the basis for religion).
but science (or more accurately, the scientific method) has proved a far more potent force than religion, and for the past 4-5 centuries has been giving superstition a run for its money. we are now approaching a cross-roads - either reason will prevail and mankind will progress to levels undreamed of today; or superstition and irrationality will prevail, and we will see a catastrophic end to human life. the endgame is being played out now. watch out for the photo-finish results!!
at least that is imho. :-)
but science (or more accurately, the scientific method) has proved a far more potent force than religion, and for the past 4-5 centuries has been giving superstition a run for its money. we are now approaching a cross-roads - either reason will prevail and mankind will progress to levels undreamed of today; or superstition and irrationality will prevail, and we will see a catastrophic end to human life. the endgame is being played out now. watch out for the photo-finish results!!
at least that is imho. :-)
#134 Posted by bolta_aaina on November 23, 2005 8:39:10 pm
Ref:-#98,99,100 parthaab
Ref your posts. Please give me some time to respond. Thanks.
Ref your posts. Please give me some time to respond. Thanks.
#131 Posted by kamasutra on November 23, 2005 6:08:08 pm
130 - Mr. Chauhan, I sympathize with your need to respond here. But really, your response has nothing to do with this topic. I realize that Mr. Khamkhwa started this unfortunate exchange here on FP. Please keep personal fights from this board. If you feel any better about it, I find your interactions to be much more logical and informative than those of Mr. Khamkhwa. It seems that he has nothing but fighting on his mind. Thank you and have a Happy Thanksgiving.
#130 Posted by Salim_Chauhan on November 23, 2005 5:22:33 pm
#52, Khamkhwa,
You think that you are clever in your abuse? What you don`t realize is that most Chowkies are aware of your habit of researching and pasting just the posts you need to defame and slander your opponents. The truly descriptive remarks about you and your family that you posted were not authored by me orginally. They were uttered by Zeena, someone you have been abusing for quite some time now. Once she became disgusted with you, she gave you a taste of your own medecine, much to your surprise. Seeing the effect that her retaliation had on you, I merely collected her posts and posted them against you, hoping that you would relearn the lesson she was teaching you. Unfortunately, you chose to copy the childish fighting from Chowk UP and presented it here in the hallowed halls of FP, just to prove that you are a ``victim`` of abuse. People are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. I hope you learned your lesson, or should we summon Zeena to put you in your place?
You think that you are clever in your abuse? What you don`t realize is that most Chowkies are aware of your habit of researching and pasting just the posts you need to defame and slander your opponents. The truly descriptive remarks about you and your family that you posted were not authored by me orginally. They were uttered by Zeena, someone you have been abusing for quite some time now. Once she became disgusted with you, she gave you a taste of your own medecine, much to your surprise. Seeing the effect that her retaliation had on you, I merely collected her posts and posted them against you, hoping that you would relearn the lesson she was teaching you. Unfortunately, you chose to copy the childish fighting from Chowk UP and presented it here in the hallowed halls of FP, just to prove that you are a ``victim`` of abuse. People are a lot smarter than you give them credit for. I hope you learned your lesson, or should we summon Zeena to put you in your place?
#129 Posted by KaalChakra on November 23, 2005 5:18:08 pm
Samosa
Actually, morality is not hard to explain in rational terms.
Actually, morality is not hard to explain in rational terms.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- Goldfinger: Re: # 700 tahmed...that... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- nkg: Re: # 89 bluffer32... yeh dawood... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Goldfinger: Re: # 698 ngk...says:... Mumbai Attacks: Shocking
- mohar11: Re: # 98 Right on...... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Dash_Dot: Re: # 84 sabji... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- mohar11: I mean - zardari... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- Dash_Dot: Tahmed32 sabji LOL at... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
- AlephNull: There's nothing particularly mysterious... India-Pakistan: Empathy, grief in
