How green is their valley?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

FV #224
``... Chowk staff:

I am glad you are now taking a pro-active role. I would also like you to clarify that you are not a Pakistani site not because it is a matter of nationalism, but this is about South Asia…those who wish to live on islands will do so anyway.

Thank you…``

A couple of points
The sketch used to describe Chowk (Chowk Illustrations) at the top-right , shows a chowk, ie intersection of roads. And whats at the intersection, a glass bulb with map of Pakistan. I request the Chowk staff to replace this map of pakistan with map of South Asia so that its clear that its not about pakistan alone.

And regarding taking snipes about people who wish to live in islands, whats wrong with people living in islands?
The way you say bombay is yr city and have concern for it first before anything else (writing all that poem etc) shows that you are also living on an island.

What happened to bombay this year happens every year at some place or other across the globe, but I don`t see you breaking into a stenchful poem for them.

I will be eagerly waiting for the chowk staff to change the logo. Don`t say what`s in a picture?

This dormant board is showing certain signs of active life again.

#224 FarzanaVersey
[This is why you will not see me changing my stand on a board several times, you will not see me asking others to confirm any suspicions, and you will not see me seeking the opinions of others about whether I should stay on…]

Although this author continues to direct her remarks to Neptune, it’s fairly obvious she is referring to my remarks in #222. I have EVERY right to ask my fellow chowkies for their opinions – I don’t need this author’s approval to do that (what is this, first she starts asking people to go to deeply-buried boards when the opinions do not suit her and now she starts grabbing dictatorial powers for herself?) I also have every right to stay on as a perpetual apparition or I can scram when it pleases my fancy – based on exactly what I decide to do – not on what others tell me to do – or hint me to do (the latter course, as this author does)!

Regarding this whole issue of knighthood – I would like to remind this author that in real life, there are no knights or villains – just people. And real people do not have clairvoyant powers – they can not see that a person could be marooned on a flooded island (overloaded under buckets of water (the “weight of water” can indeed be VERY heavy)) and it’s entirely possible to think that such a person is simply cowering like a scared little wet cat inside a secret cave – hiding from unfriendly sticks – and a bit of helping hand to bail out the poor cat may be just the compassionate thing to do. (I personally never liked the book “101 ways to skin a cat”.)

Regarding changing my stand several times – I would like to remind this author that I have taken a vow to NEVER suffer from that great malady that virtually all chowkies are chronic patients of (especially HER) – that malady of intransigence. I would like to refresh her memory (which seems to have been wiped out due to the devastating deluge) by referring her to an earlier i-log I wrote (then deleted, of course) – which was entitled “To Sir, With Love”. I will be happy to reproduce it here, if necessary (and if I can locate it myself)!

Suffice it to say – people who are open to the opinions and views of others are the reasonable people of the world – who retain an ability to grow intellectually – and who contribute to advancing the state of knowledge and understanding. As a corollary, it’s also fair to conclude that those who don’t – they just don’t have that ability – i.e., their growth gets stunted – they sit immobile – like a boulder – crying on shoulder – getting colder!

FV:
``I notice that s/he has not interacted here at all, contributed zilch to the discussion. suppose some people do like a good fight.``

And:

I did run a search, and these figures were mentioned in a few places

I am under no obligation to meet your expectations of what you think is a ``contribution to a discussion``. The points i had in mind regarding this piece were hammered out by many interactors here quite effectively. The point about the sources seemed unanswered and hence, my query. You failed to provide those other sources. It is alright. Dont get too worked up over nothing.

have a good one.

Oops - a mistake

I have done a search and following were numbers I found. You can also search for these numbers yourself.


from 1986 till 2004
Hindus killed - 15124
Muslims killed - 2021
Total deaths due to violence - 17045

It indicates almost 5 hindu getting killed every day.

How do you explain that?

FV
I have done a search and following were numbers I found - from 1986 till 2004
Hindus killed - 15124
Muslims killed - 2023
Total deaths due to voilence - 17047

It indicates almost 5 hindu getting killed every day.

How do you explain that?

Re: # 225

You run your own search and give me your figures, and respond to the points I have raised in my posts. Don`t worry about my credibility. That`s my concern.

And to the other person who has joined you on my new board, I notice that s/he has not interacted here at all, contributed zilch to the discussion. I suppose some people do like a good fight. Best wishes for the huddle.

I am not trying to convert you to my point of view; you cannot even try that because you have no point of view...all you can come up with are responses, and one single thread of questions...

I have said all I have to say in the article and the posts. Take it or leave it.

Fine...If you did a search and found the same numbers in ``a few places``, you should be able to post the websites you got the numbers from.

The source of your information speaks volumes about your credibility. you wouldn`t get a count of jews killed in the holocaust from a aryan nations website, would you?

I am here not to explain myself – my views spell that out clearly enough and I am not retracting them. For, no one here has stood out with valid arguments, no one has answered a single query posed in my post #93…the last few replies have been a complete waste of energy because the emphasis is on the writer even as the attempt has been to analyse the writing. I have nothing to say to that.

What I do wish to talk about is this…

[Where did you get the figures for the casualties? From a website based in Pakiland?]

This must rate as a complete cuckoo query. Since most people here have decided where my sympathies lie, I would be truly naïve to rush to a Pak site to get info. I did run a search, and these figures were mentioned in a few places. I do not see any reason to doubt them. The moot point was (and continues to be even if the figures change) that people are still being killed. So, who are they? Are they not local Muslims too?

And, to take a kinder view towards some absolutely nonsensical stuff, when you go to interview people you do not carry your portfolio with you. Most people want to tell their stories. The fact is that I have censored certain quotes that might show some people in not too good a light, and I have not published the picture of the lady although she posed for me.

There are some people here who are terribly concerned about the ‘truth’. Here is a sample of their lies…

[If Imrana gets raped by her father-in-law than she cries that it is a hindu conspiracy.
If that girl witness in Gujarat riot case retracts her case due to some greed or threat than it is a hindu conspiracy. If Akshardham happens than it is a hindu conspiracy, and if Ayndhya happens than it is a hindu conspiracy. If Abhimanyu or some other Indian officer on patrol is kidnapped and killed by Jehadis than it is a hindu conspiracy and if Indian forces than retaliate and destroy Jehadi bunkers than it is a problem for her.]

Talk of being selective and misleading…will they furbish me with eveidence for each one of those?
- - -
I am really not worried about my credibility. I may not make the right noises or sounds many of you want to hear, but these are my opinions and my conviction. Instead of nit-picking and questioning, try to answer some of the issues I have raised and repeated in my posts. There has been deafening silence on that.

It is the anonymous people here who need to prove their credentials. Opposing me only reveals their opposite agenda, not a balanced perspective! As for my so-called cohorts and knights, I look for neither. This is why you will not see me changing my stand on a board several times, you will not see me asking others to confirm any suspicions, and you will not see me seeking the opinions of others about whether I should stay on…
- - -
And then we have Mr. Ajay Raina, who says, “But, why are you silent now about receiving all the flak you much deserved. If you want to take on a kashmiri pandit one to one, here I am on. BUT ATLEAST MAKE SOME SENSE. Ok. lets have it!”

When I gave my email address it wasn’t a desperate need for a one to one; it was to emphasise that I was ready to see another point of view, as opposed to the lip sympathy easily available here. Obviously, you are more interested in the flak. As one who has been around here for a while, let me tell you this flak is not based on any reasoning; it has been there for long and is as illogical as I am accused of being.

Re. your “full” letter, it was not addressed to me. I do not use names of people in my articles unless they are on a public forum or have personally interacted with me. Besides, I had already visited the Delhi camp, so the article would have been written with or without your quotes.

The article is factually correct (except if people here insist on some figures being wrong). If you are in denial, I cannot do anything about it.

About “dubious intent” etc. and why did I not say this or that, I am not here to tell you things you want to hear, but to say things I want to say. I have already stated that I would like to read the other perspective. I won’t stoop so low as to talk about “at least make some sense” (and I will avoid excessive use of capital letters too…screaming is rather gauche, in my opinion…) but you have got out of answering the questions I raised.

I won’t hold you or anyone to that…it is a choice you make. For me it is only a way to forward discussion, if and when it needs to, not a ruse to bait someone.
- - -
The self-importance some people assume for themselves here is truly embarrassing. Find other ways to express your love…
- - -
Chowk staff:

I am glad you are now taking a pro-active role. I would also like you to clarify that you are not a Pakistani site not because it is a matter of nationalism, but this is about South Asia…those who wish to live on islands will do so anyway.

Thank you…

#222 by BeeJay

I (and I assume many other Chowkies) have always admired your piercing comments and in-your-face analysis. By leaving Chowk, you will only hasten its decline. We need people more like you. If you leave, who will clean up Chowk, since you are the only janitor around? ;-)

#221 Kaalchakra:

(An open note to Kaal:)

Kaal, you have been watching/reading my interacts – like you read everybody else’s. You probably have a very good idea of what I am about, how I think, and perhaps even why I think and interact in certain ways. I need some candid advice from you. As time passes on, my disappointment level with Chowk, its writers, and interactors (of a certain type) keeps going up.

With this Chowk crowd – especially with the string-pullers (the Sutradhars) being the way they are, is there even any point in somebody like me hanging around here?

You can let me know here (on this board) or via e-mail (cd.lion@gmail.com).

Thanks, Kaal.

Sincerely,
BeeJay.

Thank you, Sir.

Re: # 218

Sure Kaal, I have time. Do send me your comments..

I`d take your advise and refrain from responding..

googly

I just noticed you claim to be a Buddhist. Given that some people consider deceiving others a religious duty, you could very well be not telling the truth.

But out of sheer respect for Buddhism, and for the name of the Great Buddha, I will be honored to engage in any discussion with you anywhere else. A buddhist does not deceive. A buddhist does not aim to throw genuine conversations off track. A buddhist, above all, is an honorable human being.

I am currenly in the process of learning about Thai Buddhism.

Let`s take our conversation elsewhere. If you are a Buddhist, you will understand that you have all my respect, but also why I, and hopefully others soon, will not engage in further discussion with you here.

masan

By the way, I do have some genuine ideas to bounce off you off-chowk, if you kindly will. Please let me know if you would be able to spare any time. Thanks.

Dear masan

You would surely understand that googly/dalit`s interest is not in the CONTENT of your discussion but your mere ENGAGEMENT in discussion with him/them.

The self-declared purpose is to throw another genuine debate and discussion off track.

You might feel you make ALL the sense and even feel you beat/convinced the gentleman, but his purpose will be served if ``throws you off track`` from the existing discussion.

This is a very old deception. Some poeple argue that there is a clear religious association to this deceptive behavior.

You and I can only understand this behavior. We cannot argue with it. We will never be able to talk anyone out of it - unless the light shines within the person on Its own.

---

May I request you and Ajey and everyone else to let the gentleman/men play his/their game alone, or with his/their soul mates. Let`s get back to the discussion on hand.

That and only that will be the way to beat/convince the gentleman/men.