Pakistani Twist to “Aliens in America” TV Series re: Ras

I hope that the humor of the show is not watered down and that it shakes people out of their comfort zones. I remember a sitcom called "All In The Family" and its jokes were rude and racist, but they made a point!

The show must not be politically correct and cater to the whimpy tradition of the networks, but must plough new paths. People will be upset, but that is to be expected, but if the situational humor of the show is accepted, it will lead to a larger acceptance of the differences that exist within the communities.

Humor and laughing at something is always the first step towards accepting it.

It is hoped that character development by the show's creators is done intelligently and with deftness and the characters are not allowed to remain one dimensional.

The nuances in the cultural traits of the characters must be defined more sharply and brought into focus to show that there are differences in the similarities of the characters similarities in their differences. (A phrase borrowed from Rogoff).

The show must not be timid, because the potential is too great to be wasted by playing safe to the gallery.

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan re: masadi

Masadi writes: "This is not the world I choose to live in and I'll be goddamned if I end my life because of the doings of the US elite"

So that is it, isn't it?

You simply cannot deal with the reality and have gone stark raving mad, haven't you?

None of us likes the way the world is, but we all deal with the reality, but you have created your own reality and in your self-created reality, you are the lone defender of the suffering humanity and sole beholder of the truth, aren't you?

The US elites won't have to end your life, Masadi; you will end it yourself in one of your fits of righteous indignations. I should have known that the saying was right...if you give someone a long enough piece of rope, they will eventually hang themselves.

You must be really a miserable person living in this world, aren't you?

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan re: Mantolives # 130

I think that Masadi's problem is that he is an academican and somewhere he got lost in the academia and lost all contact with reality. He lives in a world of his own creation and seems to fight with the demons of his own creation.

Last night, I was researching the records of the Spanish Inquistion in the period 1790 to 1815. When the French invaded Spain in the 1800s, they ended the Spanish Inquistion and imprisoned the priest and freed the prisoners. The French records showed that two prisoners considered themselves to be Napoleon and had gone mad from the torture.

As the records noted, one prisoner who considered himself to be Napoleon was an Arab and the other one was over seven feet tall!

Masadi has gone nuts simply because of his obession with his chosen tormentors - the US elites!

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan re: masadi

I answered your questions, but you have not answered mine.

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan Re: masadi # 65

Masadi, you are a disappoinment. Your insults are getting stale...you need to find new and better ones! I know that you can do it! I have unlimited faith in your ability to insult people! Give it a try! :)

Thanks for stating the question and answering it!

If a parliament, elected or appointed, cannot make laws under the threat of a gun, why did MMA support the passage of this law? Why did the parliamentarians not resign in protest? Were their perks of power too important?

This parliament was in league with Musharraf and now, having been denied their share in power, they want the courts to undo their bargain of political greed and its resultant stupidity.

You are right; amendments cannot be tailor made for one person, but this is just what this parliament did when it passed the 17 Amendment in 2002. From 2002 to 2004 and from then to today, it was silent? Why?

I agree, with you on the interpretation of the 17 Amendment, but it still does not absolve the role of the parliament and that was the question to Mantolives.

Justice Rana Bhagwandas talked about his dissent on the basis of "conscience", where was the conscience of the parliament in passing a law it had no right to pass in the first place?

Read the 17 Amendment and you will realize that it copies the (whole) LFO into the constitution and as to what Aitzaz Ahsan said, he was debating the legality of the law whereas the court was debating the reality of the law in its decisions. What was the choice before the court? Musharraf for another 5 years or martial law? Political prudence or judicial recklessness?

This is what I said in my earlier posts, but you choose to ignore it in your personal hatred of me. The issue is not dead; if it can be proven that parliament was not competent to pass the 17 Amendment, as you say, then the duality of the two offices can still be ruled against. The issue is, whether the parliament had the procedural right to do such, and the answer is it did not, beacause in doing so, it significantly changed the nature of the constitution.

As to the interpretation of the constitution, the court can be faulted there, but had it done so and called the 17 Amendment illegal, who have amended the amendment itself?

If this parliament was not the proper authority to pass the 17 Amendment in the first place, as it was not, then how come it can be judged as the right authority to repeal it under the court's judgement?

Aitzaz Ahsan was not arguing the competence of the parliament in the passage of the 17 Amendment, whereas the court was saying it was the competence of the parliament that allowed for the eventuality of Musharraf contesting elections in uniform.

Now, by all means feel free to insult me all the names you can think of, while not answering any of my questions as your past habits suggest. Please feel free to twist my words and quote me out of context and please do not hesitate to sink to the lowest levels of maturity to make your venom known against me. While you are foaming at the mouth, please do not refrain from repeating your socialist-religious mantra about the US elites and the glories of socialism and the joys of poverty.

Ciao

P.S.: Make sure you are wearing a bip, when you foam at the mouth, I would not like your clothes to be soiled!

A Sad Day for Pakistan re: bjkumar # 40

That was a very good post.

re: Mantolives

Please consider the following, if you will.

There is no prohibition on the re-submission of the petition, and it can be re-filed but on a diffrent constitutional argument.

The legal issue is not dead. It has been adjourned sine die. It can be revived when a new petition is filed.

Does this mean that a new petition challenging the duality of the offices, if it holds the parliament as a defendent instead of an individual, will have a better chance of success?

To borrow your from your idea, it would make good sense if there is a new petition filed, before the Supreme Court, that raises the question, whether the parliament has constitutional competence and the right to pass a law that violates the constitution itself?

(I think, that this seems to be the next phase of the process)

In other words, asking the Supreme Court to define the legislative powers of the parliament itself and in the process, giving it the power of the judicial review over all acts of parliament.

I think that you are right; the real question is whether the parliament has the power to make extra-constitutional laws.

If such a petition is filed and it is held to be in violation by the Supreme Court, then that would automatically anull the law that allows Musharaff to hold two offices and also make him ineligble to contest the elections at the same time. Is this a correct assumption?

The key, right now, is to follow the correct procedure by asking the right questions and in turn, forcing a constitutional debate on the issues in the fora of Pakistani public opinion.

Looking forward to your comments.

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan re: HP # 6

Agreed!

It does open up some interesting possibilities and as to the Islamic groups controlling the streets, HP, my view is that their influence though vocal and violent will be limited.

Islamic groups, without outside support, will have a hard time to win the popular opinion, because the people have wisened up - the real issues the average person cares about is the price of flour, tea and sugar; crime and law and order, inflation etc. The real issues will marginalize the trival issues, which the politicans keep mouthing and the same goes for the Islamic parties.

Their political-religious message, to be successful, has to resonate with the people and not threaten them!

The politicans are, and have been, out of step with the popular view and that is one reason, why the politicans have not been able to mobilize the people. No one is willing to face death and be shot for the sake of criminals and plunders and looters and liars and cheaters and this is what you hear on the streets and what the people are thinking.

The people have seen through the politicans and now with the Supreme Court decision and its reasonings, the politicans also stand discredited in the public forum. It is not the end, by any means, but a level of political muturity, if not sophistication, has developed in the Pakistani public awareness.

The Supreme Court did right by it's decision and refused to be held accountable for the misdeeds of the politicans and finally, has made the politicans accountable for their own actions!

Ciao

A Sad Day for Pakistan re:Naeem Sadiq

I agree, with cliftonbridge, Mantolives and philosopher.

The real issue here was the supremacy of the law and independence of the judiciary in Pakistan.

The disappointment of the verdict aside, the decision of the court should not be simply taken as an acid test against or for Musharraf. In Pakistan, what we urgently need is the institutionalization of the process and the procedures for debating, and resolving and accepting and ultimately, respecting the final decision. The emphasis in Pakistan, and where Pakistan needs to pay attention is towards the idea of the supremacy of institutionalism and not the supermacy of the individual personalities.

Presently, the decision of the court might be a bitter pill to digest, but there is hope in the disappointment. The Supereme Court's decision, when looked into from the perspective of the nature and role of the court itself, makes sense. It is about the upholding of the idea of seperation of powers in Pakistan even, when in reality the seperation of powers in Pakistani politics is murky.

What the court was saying was that it is not the responsibility or the function of the court and law to legislate the legislative process.

Through this decision, the court has, ironically, reinforced the idea of the seperation of power by suggesting that it cannot make laws; only parliament can make laws. Through this decision, the court has squarely blamed the parliament for passing the Seventeenth Amendment and has also said, that parliament and politicans and not the courts should make the law.

It has, via this decision, maintained the independence of the judiciary as a seperate branch of the government and did not allow the judiciary to slip into deciding legislative issues.

The job of the judiciary is to define, interpret and implement the law of the land and not make the law itself.

This is the far-reaching and the consquential result of the Supreme Court's decision.

One only has to thank the fickle minded and self-serving politicans for making the law that allowed Musharraf the legal legitimacy, which he needed to contest the elections in uniform!

Note: The decision was based on the existence of the law, the Seventeeth Amendment, which incorporated the entire Legal Framework Order into the constitution and in fact, made it de jure.

Who made the law and passed the Seventeenth Amendment?

The Superme Court of Pakistan or the MMA?

Solution to the problem, as the court has said is simple. Parliament can change the law and if the offending amendment is removed, then the illegality of dual offices becomes a matter of the law and can be judged upon.

This is a landmark decision in the history of Pakistan, because it states clearly the importance of following a procedure to change the law - acts of parliament instead of judicial ad hocism, no matter how expedient it may seem in a given moment for a particular reason.

The Doctrine of Necessity has been rejected, because the supremacy of the law and means of the law have been upheld.

Ever since the dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan to his restoration; to Nawaz Sharif returning, all the decisions have been made on the existing codex of laws in Pakistan.

Regardless of the decision, what has triumphed has been the process of the law itself and had the Supereme Court done, what you hoped; the idea and independence of a judiciary in Pakistan would have ended!

Ciao

The Power of Ideas and the Modern University re: tahmed32

Yes, and that was the final thought of post too.

The Muslim experience will be different, but the process which is underway seems to be more similar than it is different.

Ciao

The Transformation of the Punjabi Man: Pashtunization or Militarization? re: HP # 44

HP, that was the best interact, which I have read in a long time and your sense of the absurd must be appreciated, and was!.

Ciao

The Power of Ideas and the Modern University Re: tahmed32 # 45

Good question!

It is hard to say because the damage is probably more than the negation of rationalism and logic and it can easily be measured in the bonzai learning, which is the end result when religion dominates the curriculum.

The issue in the 1500s, as it is now, was that religion has to be taken on blind faith and religion cannot be reconciled with secular ideas, because that raises the question of justification and proof of evidence in support of an idea. When confronted with this dilemma, the usual tactic is for religion to "place a round peg in a square hole" in the sense that religion assumes a secular argument to support a thesis is essentially one of faith and when it does so, it puts itself at par with secular ideas and invites a comparsion and critique of its ideas, but is not willing to tolerate the criticism as much as it wants to dominate the debate on the basis of an assumed reverance to its ideology.

Secondly, religion in the ultimate sense is about power and religion will automatically resist those ideas, which it cannot refute because such ideas pose a direct challange to its own power. The power of a religion, over a people, comes from the acceptance of its ideas on blind unquestioning faith and when a particular faith is questioned, the institutional response is invaribly not to defend the faith, but to prevent the erosion of institutionalized power of the religion itself.

The greatest threat to a religion is marked by that moment, when people start to question its basic dogmas and the religion has no answer except rationalizations that do not reflect the realism of the reasons, which prompted the questions in the first place.

The European experience, in this regard hints towards three developments, which are starting to emerge in the Islamic world also. One, is that the failure to answer questions involves an added emphasis being placed on rituals and ceremonies and reliance on the hierarchies of clerical bureaucracies (priests, rabbis and mulvis etc)while at the same time, elements of hypocrisy start to enter the religious philosophies, whereby the acts and practices of a religion and its followers are at odds, with the message and the teachings of the religion itself.

Secondly, there is an increased practice of what might simply be called common piety by the people, when people disenchanted with message of a religion and finding it to be of no value in their daily lifes, start to assmilate religious ideas within their own social and cultural experiences and follow their own methods of worship at expense of worshipping in congreations in an organized manner as mandated by a particular religion or a church.

Third; when a religion is confronted with these developments, it will first seek to answer their questions by means of non-religious arguments; seeking to blend religion with the prevailing logic and if this fails, it will use brute force. The interesting aspect of the use of force, by any religion in defence of its doctrine, is not to force recantations upon the people, who have already left the fold, but to prevent those within in the religion, who might have doubts, from expressing those doubts in public.

The end game is to still retain the secular power of the religion over a people, because the religious bureaucracies are quite intelligent to realize that "power maintained is power retained".

Change will happen, when the people start to question the religious bureaucracies to explain, how their actions which are at odds, with tenets of a religion actually advance the cause of the religion itself and do not start to judge the answers on a religious reason, but on the reasons of proof and evidence of a secular nature.

It is generally the lack of answer to this question, which starts the process of a reformation in a religion. The present debate within Islam is not that different from the debate that was happening in Europe in the 1400s on the role of the church in politics and the role of the priests in the daily lives of the people.

The only difference in the Islamic world today and the Europe of 1400s/1500s, and a crucial one, is that arrival of the printing press and development of vernacular languages, was allowing for the translation of the Bible, which was in Latin, into the vernacular langages, whereby the people could actually read and understand the words of the Bible. Once people read the Bible and understood it, they realized that what the priest had been preaching them was a politically inspired version of the religion and that the vast majority of the priest had no knowledge of Latin itself, but had memorized certain Latin phrases, which they used in their sermons without even understanding what they had memorized.

It was for this reason that the Catholic Church did not allow for the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, because it knew that it would raise a host of questions, for which the answers would be problematic at the best and simply contradictory at the worst.

Hence, the greatest contribution of Martin Luther to the reformation of the religion, in Europe, was not the posting of the 95 Theses (demands for reform) but the translation of the Latin based Bible into German.

This is where the similarity ends between Europe of yesterday and the Islamic world of today.

Ciao

The Power of Ideas and the Modern University re: tahmed32 & viqarm

Sorry to interrude into this discussion, but I thought that I would clarify a few points.

Copernicus did, indeed, was the first person to come with the heliocentric theory and he based his ideas on the works of the Greeks. Copernicus, was one of the first to question the medieval concept of a geocentric universe, which was based on the cosmological ideas of Aristole that stated that earth was the center of the universe and the planets revolved around the earth in perfect concentric circles.

It is important to note that Copernicius only had a theoretical argument for a heliocentric theory and since he was timid by nature, he did not publish his ideas. Copernicius was afraid of ridicule and the fact that he simply did not wish to lock horns, with the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation had occured in the life time of Copernicus and as he was establishing his theoretical arguments on the heliocentric theory, he was aware that the church had zero-tolerance for heretical ideas.

Hence, he kept his theories to himself and never made them public.

Copernicus' ideas would be taken by a Danish astronomer by the name of Tyco Brahe. Brahe was interested in the heliocentric theory and he would build a private observatory on an island in the North Sea and from there, for the next twenty years, he religiously documented the motion of the planets and the stars. Brahe, basically laid the foundation for Galileo's works, because his documentation allowed for the exact prediction of the planetary motions and in fact, his data/observations/measurements were so accurate that it was easy to predict the location of a planet or a star on a given day and on a given hour!

Brahe, also did not publish his works either, but Brahe had an assistant by the name of Johannes Kepler. Kepler would take the work of Brahe and would construct the first mathematical model of a heliocentric universe. This model was quite similar to the theoretical ideas of Copernicus, but unlike Copernicus; Kepler had mathematical evidence to support his theories.

Kepler was a contempory of Galileo and both were aware of each other's works and in fact, there was a sustained correspondence between them. Consequently, Galioleo was aware of Kepler's work. In this sense, Galileo gets the credit for discovering the heliocentric theory, because he was the first one to point a telescope to the heavens and confirm Kepler's theories based on the astronomical observations of Brahe, which were inspired by the works of Copernicus.

Unlike, Copernicus or Brahe or even Kepler, Galileo published his observations in a book called the Starry Messenger, in which he discredited the concept of the geocentric universe. For his audacity in refuting the Bible and the biblical concept of the geocentric universe, Galileo was dragged before the Inquistion and under torture, was forced to recant. After recanting, Galileo left his home town, and once away, he restated that his ideas were right and the church was wrong literally thumbing his nose at the church!

Galileo's simple claim to fame is that he was the first one to publish the idea; the concept about a heliocentric theory, even though his fame and acclaim was based on the accumulated the works of Kepler, Copernicus and Brahe.

Galileo simply confirmed the Copernican theory of a heliocentric universe and that is why he is generally credited with it; though historicans know that his work was the final culmination of the process that was started by Copernicus and carried on by Brahe and Kepler.

Hope this helps.

Ciao

Please back off, Benazir! re: masadi

How does calling me names makes up for the fact that you have a superior intellect?

As to name calling, I am really disappointed in you. A professor of your calibre should have a more varied phraseology of insults, but you seem to be stuck with just one or two that you keep repeating. I hope you can improve and reach the next level in naming call, because as it is, you are just in the pee-wee league.

Governments are meant to rule and despite what ever the US declaration of independence said, the US government still believes in sovereign power as much as any other government.

Please answer my questions on Bhutto first and then insult me, but make sure that it is more creative than it has been in the past.

Maybe, English is your second language and you cannot think clearly, in that case; I apologise to you - please feel free to call me names in any language in which you are literate.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Ciao

Please back off, Benazir! Re: Masadi # 151

I disagree, with you. There are certain principles that cannot be compromised. There is no reason to limit or even end civil rights even if there an invasion about to happen, as in the case of Cuba and the United States. For example, during the Second World War, the British courts and legal systems were operating even as German bombs were falling over London.

I believe, since you indulge in banal insults, sarcasm is something you are not quite familar with and if you re-read my post, you will notice the acidic sarcasm in my questions.

I agree, with you that Bhutto was the first one to champion socialism in Pakistan and he did appeal to the people. I have nothing against a leader appealing to the people. My only requirement is that such a leader be true to the nation and Z. A. Bhutto was only true to his own ambitions. My impressions of Bhutto are not based on historic books, but from talking with the people, who worked with and knew him. I can vouche for his intellect and vision and I do think, given the balance of facts, that he was a political genius, when it came to the messages of packaged appeals to the people.

Bhutto, was also an evil genius, because his only character flaw, and the biggest, was that he could not hide his meglomania. His popularist policies caused more harm to the nation than they did good and his idea of nationalization ruined the economy of Pakistan. My opinion of Bhutto went from idealism to realism and in the end, with the passage of the years, I understood that no matter how noble the aim or the cause, the end never justifies the means.

In my opinion, Bhutto in his actions believed in the discredited idea that it is alright to destroy the village in order to save it and he, in order to save Pakistan; he destroyed it. The nationalization of education in Pakistan, when bureaucrats took over schools and started to teach politics, was the start of the slippery slope for education in Pakistan. Bhutto's policy of lateral entry into the civil service of Pakistan destroyed the idea of the merit in the government on the basis of quotas.

As to the mandate in East Pakistan, your statement does not make sense. You said that Bhutto did not accept it, because it was the creation of Jinnah, a person whom you hold in low esteem.

If it was a wrong mandate and yes it was wrong, because the real democratic mandate was in favor of East Pakistan, with a large majority. If Bhutto had any inkling of infusing the spirit of democracy in Pakistan, he would have accepted the wishes of the election of 1970 and restored the mandate to the people of East Pakistan.

Instead, he only opted to continue with a system, that you call the creation of Jinnah, and the one which favored West Pakistan. In fact, Bhutto had an historic opportunity to set aright the mistakes of Jinnah, but for the sake of his own personal ambitions, he opted for power at the expense of a popular mandate.

Secondly, we should also remember that it was Bhutto, who allowed the re-enterance of the Pakistani military back into the politics, when he sought the army's help in Baluchistan. After the war of 1971, the Pakistan army was throughly beaten and it was not interested in politics, but Bhutto in order to settle his own political differences with the people of Baluchistan, asked the army to intervene in Baluchistan.

Under the rule of Bhutto, Pakistan saw a civil war as its army fought the people of Baluchistan; Pakistanis and killed them. Bhutto even arrested Baluch leaders, who opposed him.

How did Bhutto infuse the spirit of democracy in Pakistan by bringing the army back into politics by telling it to fight a dirty war in Baluchistan and how did his policies in Baluchistan, by killing the Baluch, amount to bringing social justice to the people of Pakistan?

Also, since as you mention that he was the greatest leader Pakistan has ever seen and if so, could you please tell me why the Greatest Leader Pakistan ever saw, continued to hold an Indian passport and only applied for Pakistani citizenship, when Ayub Khan offered him a position in his cabinet under the first martial law in Pakistan?

Strange is it not, that the greatest leader in Pakistan who wanted to bring social justice to the people started out his political career under the patronage of a military rule and a dictator? Where were his democratic principles and his idealism for social justice for the people, when he was being groomed for power by a dictator supported by the elites of the United States' power establishment?

Where were the principles of this Greatest of all leaders, when Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO?

Where were his concerns for the social justice for Pakistanis, when the Greatest of all great leaders, refused to allow the vote in the 1977 elections to be free?

If he had such a popular appeal and legitimacy from the people of Pakistan, what was he afraid of in not accepting the election results of 1977?

Had Bhutto not refused the mandate of the people of Pakistan, there would have been no riots in the streets and the army would have had no reason, under General Zia-ul-Haq to take over power in a coup d' etat code-named Operation Fairplay on July 5, 1977.

Bhutto, by his actions and ambitions for power actually paved the reasons on which General Zia walked into power.

Where were Bhutto's concerns for social justice and did he, the Greatest of all greatest leaders, not realize that he was harming the cause of social justice for an average Pakistani, when he refused the election results of 1977 and by his actions of refusal to the wishes of the people, invited the army to re-enter politics and take power?

I can still remember, standing on a roof-top in Peshawar in the early 1970s, and seeing the caravan of trucks carring Bhutto below me. He was wearing a blue suit and I can still remember the color of his cuff-links and the pattern on his neck-tie. He was my hero and I idolized him, but in the end, as I lived under his rule, gained an understanding and saw his actions, I realized that that this was not the same man, I had once cheered in Peshawar and would have readily fought to defend.

Professor sahib, people do not react to the popularity of a political message as much as they react to the individual convictions of the politican, who brings the message to them and more importantly, personally believes in the message itself.

This is the quality that makes great leaders and of all the leaders of Pakistan, only Jinnah had it and not Bhutto.

The verdict of this statement lies in the respect, which people of Pakistan give to Jinnah and not in the messages of Bhutto to the people of Pakistan.

Ciao

Please back off, Benazir! Re: MantoLives# 129

Thanks, for correcting my omission on which school Bhutto attended.

Yes, I have a guarded optimism. I can sense the change in the winds and I honestly think that this nation has reached a level of political maturity, where they are now aware of their constitutional rights.

I think, that now democracy in Pakistan will be defined in the judgements of the Supreme Court decisions and people, will approach it for solutions to their problems, because they now believe in it as an indepedent institution.

I hope the Supreme Court lives up to the common expectation.

Thanks, for your comments on the post and ilog. :)

Ciao

Please back off, Benazir! re: masadi

Z. A. Bhutto, was educated from an American university. I know that he was in United States at the same time as Ellahi Bux Soomro, who was studying engineering at that time. I am not sure though, whether Soomro went to Stanford or UCLA or Bhutto went to UCLA and not Stanford.

Bhutto had a western style edcuation from a nation that you call the worst elitist nation in the world.

So, what does that make Bhutto?

Bhutto was groomed by General Ayub Khan and it was Bhutto, who was responsible for the ill-fated Operation Grand Slam; the infilteration of Indian-held Kashmir by Pakistan, when he was in charge of the Kashmir cell of the Pakistani foreign policy. Bhutto was the foreign minister of Pakistan under Ayub Khan.

So, once more; what does that make Bhutto?

An elitist imperialistic educated stooge of the elitist western exploitive powers?

After the elections of 1970, Bhutto refused to accept the mandate of the elections, that went in favor or Mujib-ur-Rehman and the wishes of East Pakistan. After presiding over the creation of the 1973 Consitution, he watered down many of its civic rights; he involved Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence in politics by telling them to spy on his political opponents. He created a non-accountable para-military force called the Federal Security Force (FSF) and used it, like the Brown Shirts of Adolf Hitler to persecute his political opponents.

How did Bhutto "infuse" the spirit of democracy in Pakistan by setting aside the civil consitutional rights of the people, creating a non-accountable police force, spying and percecuting his political opponents and not agreeing to accept the election results of 1970?

Please explain (without name calling and hurling insults and making statements tantamount to libel and slander accusations).

Ciao