I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:34 am

http://www.hindustantimes.com/I-have-not-slapped-anybody-says-Digvijay-Singh/Article1-722917.aspx

BJP needs to come clean on this incident.Congress is asking for a probe into the incident and it would be good if the BJP CM obliges.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:49 am

Pigvijay claimed he slapped some BJP men and you promptly hailed him as a brave politician.

Now that he has claimed otherwise, do you consider him a Sissy who failed to slap the BJP goons ?

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:54 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:Pigvijay claimed he slapped some BJP men and you promptly hailed him as a brave politician.

Now that he has claimed otherwise, do you consider him a Sissy who failed to slap the BJP goons ?

--> he never claimed he slapped anyone. i never hailed him i only said that he must have slapped "BJP goons" (your words) when subjected to gross provocation. According to news reports his car was beaten by sticks and stones were thrown at him.

--> Now the congress is claiming that an attempt was made on his life and is demanding a probe into the incident. The BJP CM is conveniently sidestepping the demand for a probe. Do you agree that this BJP CM is protecting "BJP goons".

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:24 am

Rashmun wrote:i never hailed him

But you did apply the Rashmun Method to generate an elaborate screenplay of what happened, and how Diggyji heroically bitchslapped BJP workers who couldn't withstand his assault, a la Rajnikanth and assorted goondas in ewwery vonn of his movies.

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 7:51 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:i never hailed him
But you did apply the Rashmun Method to generate an elaborate screenplay of what happened, and how Diggyji heroically bitchslapped BJP workers who couldn't withstand his assault, a la Rajnikanth and assorted goondas in ewwery vonn of his movies.

--> i had speculated based on the available facts. Also, do not forget that the Rashmun Method has succeeded in befooling you on numerous occasions. i already gave three links in another thread--i can probably come up with a hundred threads on CH in which the Rashmun Method managed to pull the wool over your eyes.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:47 am

Rashmun wrote:Also, do not forget that the Rashmun Method has succeeded in befooling you on numerous occasions. i already gave three links in another thread--i can probably come up with a hundred threads on CH in which the Rashmun Method managed to pull the wool over your eyes.

As I said elsewhere:

Well, I don't believe in opposing or supporting ideas based on who
advocates them. You think violence is bad, but you think it's good if
perpetrated by Congress. You will apply the Rashmun Method to justify
your stance. OTOH, I will agree with you when you say something
sensible, and point it out when you insist on defending the
indefensible. I don't consider that "being fooled."

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 9:50 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Also, do not forget that the Rashmun Method has succeeded in befooling you on numerous occasions. i already gave three links in another thread--i can probably come up with a hundred threads on CH in which the Rashmun Method managed to pull the wool over your eyes.
As I said elsewhere:

Well, I don't believe in opposing or supporting ideas based on who
advocates them. You think violence is bad, but you think it's good if
perpetrated by Congress. You will apply the Rashmun Method to justify
your stance. OTOH, I will agree with you when you say something
sensible, and point it out when you insist on defending the
indefensible. I don't consider that "being fooled."

--> in other words, the Rashmun Method works fine when it deals with charvakas but fares poorly when analyzing the congress and BJP?

by Propagandhi711 Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:00 am

what kinda sissy mary slaps someone? is that customary? slapping is for women and the gays, IMO.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:04 am

Rashmun wrote:in other words, the Rashmun Method works fine when it deals with charvakas but fares poorly when analyzing the congress and BJP?

Let's just say the Rashmun Method is clearly not working right now.

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:05 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:in other words, the Rashmun Method works fine when it deals with charvakas but fares poorly when analyzing the congress and BJP?
Let's just say the Rashmun Method is clearly not working right now.

opinions vary.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:08 am

Correct, and this is where they stand.

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja Vote_lcap

I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja Vote_rcap

23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja Vote_lcap

76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:23 am

charvaka wrote:Correct, and this is where they stand.

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. 23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. 76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13

and the poll was created by none other than hellsangel. which explains why both the options are designed to slam me.

now, to return to the other point:

you DID NOT know about charvakas when i started posting about them on CH. sure you gave your opinions on what i was posting but you never gave any indication of having independent knowledge about them. on one occasion, as per my recollection, you wrote on CH that you would be asking your dad about Charvakas after you had read some of my posts about them. you also confessed on CH that your knowlege of Indian philosophy was "miniscule" (the word i recall you using) compared to mine.

so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle name.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:12 am

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Correct, and this is where they stand.

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. 23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. 76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13

and the poll was created by none other than hellsangel. which explains why both the options are designed to slam me.

so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle name.

There was this poor, mentally deranged guy who used to roam the streets blabbering all the time imagining himself to be a traffic cop. No one arrested him, banned him, nor ignored him. People around him and on the street always stood watching him for a few minutes, laughing at him, making fun of him, made comments about him, and walked away murmuring "poor crazy, delusional guy"

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:53 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:Correct, and this is where they stand.

Yes, it is better to ignore what he posts. 23% [ 3 ]No, his outlandish posts are too irresistible to ignore. 76% [ 10 ] Total Votes : 13

and the poll was created by none other than hellsangel. which explains why both the options are designed to slam me.

so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle name.

There was this poor, mentally deranged guy who used to roam the streets blabbering all the time imagining himself to be a traffic cop. No one arrested him, banned him, nor ignored him. People around him and on the street always stood watching him for a few minutes, laughing at him, making fun of him, made comments about him, and walked away murmuring "poor crazy, delusional guy"

--> That was Uppiliullah.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 1:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:you DID NOT know about charvakas when i started posting about them on CH.

Wrong.

Rashmun wrote:you also confessed on CH that your knowlege of Indian philosophy was "miniscule" (the word i recall you using) compared to mine.

Right.

Rashmun wrote:so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle name.

Sorry, I can't give you credit for where you don't deserve it. I learnt more about Charvakas thanks to your posts, but I had heard about them long before I ever posted on CH.

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:06 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:you DID NOT know about charvakas when i started posting about them on CH.
Wrong.

Rashmun wrote:you also confessed on CH that your knowlege of Indian philosophy was "miniscule" (the word i recall you using) compared to mine.
Right.

Rashmun wrote:so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle name.
Sorry, I can't give you credit for where you don't deserve it. I learnt more about Charvakas thanks to your posts, but I had heard about them long before I ever posted on CH.

--> its sad that one never saw any original contribution from you in your various replies to my charvaka posts.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:19 pm

Rashmun wrote:--> its sad that one never saw any original contribution from you in your various replies to my charvaka posts.

I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRLQlNT8IVo5S01qU3qlitFSR3kJ0JfLe_Kb5a8nbAYPS5Gn-aAOQ

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 2:48 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> its sad that one never saw any original contribution from you in your various replies to my charvaka posts.

--> the reason for my sadness is that i did not expect you of all people to start lying brazenly.

by Guest Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:--> its sad that one never saw any original contribution from you in your various replies to my charvaka posts.

--> the reason for my sadness is that i did not expect you of all people to start lying brazenly.

--> there were people on CH with who i had discussions on Indian philosophy who knew a lot more than you do on the subject. But they had never heard of Charvaka philosophy. The reason is that Charvaka philosophy is considered an unimportant branch of Indian philosophy and not given much importance. Most books on Indian philosophy don't even discuss Charvakas. And so, VGR, Satya Prabhakar, Kannan, etc. had not heard of Charvaka philosophy when i made my first post on CH on the Charvakas.

--> it is interesting that someone like you who openly admits that his knowledge of Indian philosophy is 'miniscule' also claims that his knowledge about Charvakas was there all along.

by charvaka Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:start lying brazenly.

I don't intend to follow your example, no.

by SomeProfile Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:23 am

Rashmun wrote:
--> i had speculated based on the available facts.

Correction: You speculated based on other people's speculations and/or false rumors. Stories that get printed or are told by someone, and which later turn out to be false are NOT called facts. By definition, facts are usually unconditional truths that don't change based on who tells them.

Here is an example of a fact for you: you speculated based on other people's speculations that you stupidly assumed to be facts. Your speculation and your stupidity are facts.

Makes one wonder how much of the other things you say, based on stuff you claim to have read somewhere are also similar stupid and absurd lies. I am guess 99%.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 6:44 am

Rashmun wrote:

--> there were people on CH with who i had discussions on Indian philosophy who knew a lot more than you do on the subject. But they had never heard of Charvaka philosophy. The reason is that Charvaka philosophy is considered an unimportant branch of Indian philosophy and not given much importance. Most books on Indian philosophy don't even discuss Charvakas. And so, VGR, Satya Prabhakar, Kannan, etc. had not heard of Charvaka philosophy when i made my first post on CH on the Charvakas.

this is not the idea i got when i read amartya sen's the argumentative indian. sen's father was a scholar in sanskrit and presumably sen learnt some of indian philosophy from his father. i'm led to believe sen's father thought charvaka or lokayata schools important enough to teach sen them. in fact sen recounts in the book that he used to have arguments with his father (or was it his grandfather?) in his childhood regarding atheism. so, in all fairness, sen probably learned about the schools very early on. and sen devotes the first chapter of his book to the charvaka or lokayata school of thought.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 7:24 am

yes, there is a possibility that sen read your post in ch about charvaka and then went on to do his own independent research on it and subsequently publish his book. the chronological sequence of the events do support this possibility.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:45 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

--> there were people on CH with who i had discussions on Indian philosophy who knew a lot more than you do on the subject. But they had never heard of Charvaka philosophy. The reason is that Charvaka philosophy is considered an unimportant branch of Indian philosophy and not given much importance. Most books on Indian philosophy don't even discuss Charvakas. And so, VGR, Satya Prabhakar, Kannan, etc. had not heard of Charvaka philosophy when i made my first post on CH on the Charvakas.

this is not the idea i got when i read amartya sen's the argumentative indian. sen's father was a scholar in sanskrit and presumably sen learnt some of indian philosophy from his father. i'm led to believe sen's father thought charvaka or lokayata schools important enough to teach sen them. in fact sen recounts in the book that he used to have arguments with his father (or was it his grandfather?) in his childhood regarding atheism. so, in all fairness, sen probably learned about the schools very early on. and sen devotes the first chapter of his book to the charvaka or lokayata school of thought.

--> the argumentative indian is not your typical indian philosophy book. i would venture to state that most scholars of indian philosophy view the charvaka philosophy with a certain contempt and are completely unsympathetic towards it.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:47 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, there is a possibility that sen read your post in ch about charvaka and then went on to do his own independent research on it and subsequently publish his book. the chronological sequence of the events do support this possibility.

obviously he did not because his treatment of charvaka philosophy is extremely shallow and superficial. it is only meant for people who have zero acquaintance with the subject.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 9:55 am

Rashmun wrote:
--> i would venture to state that most scholars of indian philosophy view the charvaka philosophy with a certain contempt and are completely unsympathetic towards it.

this does seem to be the case. i have miniscule knowledge about indian philosophy but a quick wikipedia search tells me that it is not included in the six great schools of indian philosophy.

obviously he did not because his treatment of charvaka philosophy is
extremely shallow and superficial. it is only meant for people who have
zero acquaintance with the subject.

are you saying that sen's treatment of the charvaka school is shallow in his book? and that he has little acquaintance with indian philosophy?

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:05 am

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> i would venture to state that most scholars of indian philosophy view the charvaka philosophy with a certain contempt and are completely unsympathetic towards it.

this does seem to be the case. i have miniscule knowledge about indian philosophy but a quick wikipedia search tells me that it is not included in the six great schools of indian philosophy.

obviously he did not because his treatment of charvaka philosophy is
extremely shallow and superficial. it is only meant for people who have
zero acquaintance with the subject.

are you saying that sen's treatment of the charvaka school is shallow in his book? and that he has little acquaintance with indian philosophy?

--> i will not say that his aquaintance with indian philosophy is 'little' but yes his treatment of charvaka philosophy is very shallow in this particular book.

by Guest Thu Jul 21, 2011 10:16 am

Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
--> i would venture to state that most scholars of indian philosophy view the charvaka philosophy with a certain contempt and are completely unsympathetic towards it.

this does seem to be the case. i have miniscule knowledge about indian philosophy but a quick wikipedia search tells me that it is not included in the six great schools of indian philosophy.

obviously he did not because his treatment of charvaka philosophy is
extremely shallow and superficial. it is only meant for people who have
zero acquaintance with the subject.

are you saying that sen's treatment of the charvaka school is shallow in his book? and that he has little acquaintance with indian philosophy?

--> i will not say that his aquaintance with indian philosophy is 'little' but yes his treatment of charvaka philosophy is very shallow in this particular book.

--> for instance, his treatment of charvaka views on consciousness, epistemology (perception and inference), and ethics are very shallow.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:46 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> there were people on CH with who i had discussions on Indian philosophy who knew a lot more than you do on the subject. But they had never heard of Charvaka philosophy. The reason is that Charvaka philosophy is considered an unimportant branch of Indian philosophy and not given much importance. Most books on Indian philosophy don't even discuss Charvakas. And so, VGR, Satya Prabhakar, Kannan, etc. had not heard of Charvaka philosophy when i made my first post on CH on the Charvakas.

So are you claiming that you are smarter than them?

Honesty, I think they all committed suicide or decided not to post or knew your childish convictions based on others views, and simply ignored you.

by charvaka Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:50 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, there is a possibility that sen read your post in ch about charvaka and then went on to do his own independent research on it and subsequently publish his book. the chronological sequence of the events do support this possibility.

Then it must be true. Also, remember that Sen does not acknowledge in his book that he first heard about the Charvaka school of thought from Rashmun. Sen is a liar, I say.

by charvaka Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:i would venture to state that most scholars of indian philosophy view the charvaka philosophy with a certain contempt and are completely unsympathetic towards it.

That's the loss of the "scholars" of Indian philosophy who can't tell philosophy apart from religion. Good for Sen that he didn't fall into the trap of seventh century godmen-philosophers.

by Guest Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:23 am

charvaka wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:yes, there is a possibility that sen read your post in ch about charvaka and then went on to do his own independent research on it and subsequently publish his book. the chronological sequence of the events do support this possibility.
Then it must be true. Also, remember that Sen does not acknowledge in his book that he first heard about the Charvaka school of thought from Rashmun. Sen is a liar, I say.

--> Given Sen's shallow and superficial treatment of Charvaka philosophy in his book, it would have pained me if he would have given my posts any credit for his exposition of Charvaka views.

by charvaka Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:30 am

Rashmun wrote:Given Sen's shallow and superficial treatment of Charvaka philosophy in his book, it would have pained me if he would have given my posts any credit for his exposition of Charvaka views.

Congrats! That's quite a change of heart in a day... just yesterday you were begging me for credit for my handle name, even though my knowledge of Indian philosophy is miniscule!

Rashmun at https://such.forumotion.com/t2004-i-did-not-slap-anybody-diggy-raja#17199 wrote:so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of
your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle
name.

by Guest Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:36 am

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Given Sen's shallow and superficial treatment of Charvaka philosophy in his book, it would have pained me if he would have given my posts any credit for his exposition of Charvaka views.
Congrats! That's quite a change of heart in a day... just yesterday you were begging me for credit for my handle name, even though my knowledge of Indian philosophy is miniscule!

Rashmun at https://such.forumotion.com/t2004-i-did-not-slap-anybody-diggy-raja#17199 wrote:so please give me some credit for playing some role in the coinage of
your handle name after you stopped using your own name as the handle
name.

--> yes. i think i deserve credit for the coinage of your handle name. you gave zero indication of *any* independent knowledge of Charvaka philosophy. I only saw you nodding your head in appreciation whenever you read my posts on Charvakas.

by Sponsored content

I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja

Re: I did not slap anybody: Diggy Raja