My Goddess

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

this is what I imagine your face looks like:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

this is what I imagine your face looks like:

no, that's your goddess, as the title says.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

this is what I imagine your face looks like:

no, that's your goddess, as the title says.

that;s your assface, motherfucker

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

goodcitizn wrote:It never fails to amuse me that, whenever you lose an argument, your last-ditch effort is to not only resort to name-calling but also blatantly lie about the other person's beliefs. If there has been anyone here close to whining, a dispassionate observer would point his finger firmly at you for bleating like a wounded old goat whose testicles were chewed out by a passing mongoose.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:
the subject you raise is not relevant to this thread; rashmun posted a disgusting picture of his goddess, and I expressed my opinion of it. no picture of any crucified human figure was posted here, and I have no desire to comment on any such thing.

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

Thank you for explaining a question you dodged a million times over the years whenever you abused hinduism, hindus and hindu Gods/Godesses.

Oh...BTW...you are going to hell....

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Rashmun, this is the artistic representation of a mythological evil destroyer. It is used by the devotee to seek protection from evil, since it represents the destroyer of evil. Love, blessing and forgiveness of sins are not intended in this case.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Rashmun, this is the artistic representation of a mythological evil destroyer. It is used by the devotee to seek protection from evil, since it represents the destroyer of evil. Love, blessing and forgiveness of sins are not intended in this case.

Lord Shiva is also known as the destroyer of evil. But he is known for showering love, blessing and forgiveness as well. Your interpretation of hindu mythology and iconography may not be the same as mine; that makes it more beautiful. Let's keep it that way.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Rashmun, this is the artistic representation of a mythological evil destroyer. It is used by the devotee to seek protection from evil, since it represents the destroyer of evil. Love, blessing and forgiveness of sins are not intended in this case.

Lord Shiva is also known as the destroyer of evil. But he is known for showering love, blessing and forgiveness as well. Your interpretation of hindu mythology and iconography may not be the same as mine; that makes it more beautiful. Let's keep it that way.

Kali / Shakti in this form merely represents the destructive power of Shiva against evil, as indicated above. There is no Shakti without Shiva.

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:
no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

Thank you for explaining a question you dodged a million times over the years whenever you abused hinduism, hindus and hindu Gods/Godesses.

Oh...BTW...you are going to hell....

"explaining a question?" I wasn't; I may have clarified my stance on religion, as I have done several times in the last fifteen years: that I am an agnostic tending towards atheism, and that I am not a christian.

I don't know what hell is.

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Dont you accept a dead man - who could not save himself - and pray to "save you" on a daily basis hoping he will resurrect you from death like he rose from the dead ?  Do you think it is also ridiculous?

what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

Thank you for explaining a question you dodged a million times over the years whenever you abused hinduism, hindus and hindu Gods/Godesses.

Oh...BTW...you are going to hell....

"explaining a question?" I wasn't; I may have clarified my stance on religion, as I have done several times in the last fifteen years: that I am an agnostic tending towards atheism, and that I am not a christian.

I don't know what hell is.

I come across heaven and hell often in hinduism but I am not sure how old these concepts are, i.e., in Hinduism; is it before christianity or after? is there any citation wrt this in early literature of hinduism? I might have asked this question before in this forum.

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:
what you want to discuss is irrelevant, and none of your business. you ask these questions because you firmly believe, as the whnng ctzn does, that everyone - at least, every indian - is as irrational, superstitious and primitive as you. that's not true; I do not "accept a dead man who could not save himself," and I do not pray to anyone.

and if I do, rashmun's picture of his goddess would still be as disgusting and.crude as ever.

Thank you for explaining a question you dodged a million times over the years whenever you abused hinduism, hindus and hindu Gods/Godesses.

Oh...BTW...you are going to hell....

"explaining a question?" I wasn't; I may have clarified my stance on religion, as I have done several times in the last fifteen years: that I am an agnostic tending towards atheism, and that I am not a christian.

I don't know what hell is.

I come across heaven and hell often in hinduism but I am not sure how old these concepts are, i.e., in Hinduism; is it before christianity or after? is there any citation wrt this in early literature of hinduism? I might have asked this question before in this forum.

My entire knowledge of Hinduism comes from listening to my nanny growing up, who was big on karma and rebirths... common theme was that you come back over and over in whatever forms, human form being the result of a still good score karma-wise. You then live a life based on your past karma, and you keep improving it until you attain moksha.

As an aside, I was in a slow moving traffic today for about 30 minutes, and I let everyone at all intersections pass or join in, as long as there was a good gap for them. I guess I added a lot of karma points to my life today.

garam_kuta wrote:

Beatrix Kiddo wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Thank you for explaining a question you dodged a million times over the years whenever you abused hinduism, hindus and hindu Gods/Godesses.

Oh...BTW...you are going to hell....

"explaining a question?" I wasn't; I may have clarified my stance on religion, as I have done several times in the last fifteen years: that I am an agnostic tending towards atheism, and that I am not a christian.

I don't know what hell is.

I come across heaven and hell often in hinduism but I am not sure how old these concepts are, i.e., in Hinduism; is it before christianity or after? is there any citation wrt this in early literature of hinduism? I might have asked this question before in this forum.

My entire knowledge of Hinduism comes from listening to my nanny growing up, who was big on karma and rebirths... common theme was that you come back over and over in whatever forms, human form being the result of a still good score karma-wise. You then live a life based on your past karma, and you keep improving it until you attain moksha.

As an aside, I was in a slow moving traffic today for about 30 minutes, and I let everyone at all intersections pass or join in, as long as there was a good gap for them. I guess I added a lot of karma points to my life today.

so moksha is more like the termination of soul's journey and it has no distinctive residence, just wandering like free birds

aside: Lol.. nice of you, particularly for left turners coming in single lanes; and, I get annoyed with people who leave big gaps, in slow moving situations; sure, traffic ain't moving so what's the point in closing the gap seem natural but then, there are people behind, who would want to make left turns/right turns with or w/o feeder lanes - lots of people of oblivious of this lot..grrr.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

It is your prerogative not to answer the question; however, its relevancy is not yours to decide but up to us who read your comments in a public forum. If you find the picture of a Hindu goddess disgusting, citing a parallel case in Christianity is relevant. If you can mock the mouse as having nuclear power to carry an elephant, the same mockery befits Jesus having anti-gravitational powers to walk on water or Moses having hydromagnetic powers to part the red sea. What is irrelevant is whether or not you attended IIT-Madras at a considerably young age of sixteen while carrying a forbidding-looking volume of the latest edition of the thesaurus for intensive study.

no matter how long and pathetic your whine, it can't make the picture that rashmun posted any less disgusting, or his explanation of elephants riding mice any less ridiculous.

Hahaha @ whine. What a cowardly way to sidestep a logical question! Where did I say that the picture(s) Rashmun posted were not disgusting? Or, for that matter, where did I say that the elephant riding on the mouse was not ridiculous? I am only saying that such depictions of horrific images or idiotic miracles are not just confined to Hinduism, that you are so wont to ridicule, but explicit in Christianity as well, a religion I am yet to see you criticize on this forum.

this thread, started by rashmun, is about his goddess, a hindu goddess. accounts about other religions are not relevant.

That defense holds no water. Nothing is written in stone, not even etched in warm butter, that discussions should only be confined to the pictured post when it is used to insinuate that only the Hindus are worshippers of horrid-looking images. The minute you opened that door, Christianity became relevant as a parallel case. In essence, you have lost the debate. EOD.

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

May she always love me, protect me, bless me, and forgive all my sins.

Rashmun, this is the artistic representation of a mythological evil destroyer. It is used by the devotee to seek protection from evil, since it represents the destroyer of evil. Love, blessing and forgiveness of sins are not intended in this case.

Lord Shiva is also known as the destroyer of evil. But he is known for showering love, blessing and forgiveness as well. Your interpretation of hindu mythology and iconography may not be the same as mine; that makes it more beautiful. Let's keep it that way.

Kali / Shakti in this form merely represents the destructive power of Shiva against evil, as indicated above. There is no Shakti without Shiva.

Au contraire, there is no Shiva without Shakti as per my understanding. This is what makes Hinduism great. You have your perspective and i have mine.

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun, this is the artistic representation of a mythological evil destroyer. It is used by the devotee to seek protection from evil, since it represents the destroyer of evil. Love, blessing and forgiveness of sins are not intended in this case.

Lord Shiva is also known as the destroyer of evil. But he is known for showering love, blessing and forgiveness as well. Your interpretation of hindu mythology and iconography may not be the same as mine; that makes it more beautiful. Let's keep it that way.

Kali / Shakti in this form merely represents the destructive power of Shiva against evil, as indicated above. There is no Shakti without Shiva.

Au contraire, there is no Shiva without Shakti as per my understanding. This is what makes Hinduism great. You have your perspective and i have mine.

As it happens the Lord (Shiva) and his energy / power (Shakti) are inseparable according to the religio-philosophy. Even when Shakti is the dominant consideration, as some Shaktism followers believe (in contrast to the usual Shaivism), Shiva is not far from Shakti. Btw Shiva and Shakti together also represent the male / female dualism, without one being separate from the other. As for the image of Kali as destroyer of evil, that is just one image of the goddess (Shakti) and it enables the devotee to envision Lord's power in the particular form; the others being Saraswati (the goddess of knowledge), and so on. Ultimately, all the images (forms and representations) of goddess (as Kali, Saraswati and so on) express basically the same power (Shakti) of the Lord (Shiva).

ashdoc wrote:important thing is that she accepts sacrifice of animals so that hindus can practise bloodletting and become more tough 

Hellsangel wrote:

ashdoc wrote:important thing is that she accepts sacrifice of animals so that hindus can practise bloodletting and become more tough 

Do you practice animal sacrifice, Doc Ashish?

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:swapna: i am curious. before i answer your question, i have a clarification to seek. do you object to this particular image that rashmun posted, or to the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity (yes with multiple arms etc.) vanquishing the forces of evil?

your use of the word "object" above in connection with my post is an insinuation. this kind of insidious "cleverness" will only damage your credibility, especially with people who are not naive. 

you know very well whether I have objected to rashmun's post or not. and in my posts, I have stated my opinion and position quite clearly. 

here are four words, none meaning "objection," that succinctly describe what I experienced on seeing rashmun's post: shock, disgust, revulsion, *puke*.

my apologies for not being careful. please replace the sentence with the word "object" in my post with the following:

do you find this particular image rashmun posted objectionable, or do you find the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity vanquishing the forces of evil, objectionable? in other words is your reaction  specific to just this image, or the entire genre of art based on this theme?

i did not then, and i am not now, trying to insinuate anything. it is a question born out of genuine curiosity and i am hoping we can have an interesting and polite conversation about this.

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

That defense holds no water. Nothing is written in stone, not even etched in warm butter, that discussions should only be confined to the pictured post when it is used to insinuate that only the Hindus are worshippers of horrid-looking images. The minute you opened that door, Christianity became relevant as a parallel case. In essence, you have lost the debate. EOD.

your frustration and anger are palpable. 

you and uppili lost long ago when I correctly refused to be drawn into a discussion of other religions in this thread that rashmun started about his hindu goddess.

Rashmun wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

That defense holds no water. Nothing is written in stone, not even etched in warm butter, that discussions should only be confined to the pictured post when it is used to insinuate that only the Hindus are worshippers of horrid-looking images. The minute you opened that door, Christianity became relevant as a parallel case. In essence, you have lost the debate. EOD.

your frustration and anger are palpable. 

you and uppili lost long ago when I correctly refused to be drawn into a discussion of other religions in this thread that rashmun started about his hindu goddess.

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna wrote:
your use of the word "object" above in connection with my post is an insinuation. this kind of insidious "cleverness" will only damage your credibility, especially with people who are not naive. 

you know very well whether I have objected to rashmun's post or not. and in my posts, I have stated my opinion and position quite clearly. 

here are four words, none meaning "objection," that succinctly describe what I experienced on seeing rashmun's post: shock, disgust, revulsion, *puke*.

my apologies for not being careful. please replace the sentence with the word "object" in my post with the following:

do you find this particular image rashmun posted objectionable, or do you find the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity vanquishing the forces of evil, objectionable? in other words is your reaction  specific to just this image, or the entire genre of art based on this theme?

i did not then, and i am not now, trying to insinuate anything. it is a question born out of genuine curiosity and i am hoping we can have an interesting and polite conversation about this.

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

That defense holds no water. Nothing is written in stone, not even etched in warm butter, that discussions should only be confined to the pictured post when it is used to insinuate that only the Hindus are worshippers of horrid-looking images. The minute you opened that door, Christianity became relevant as a parallel case. In essence, you have lost the debate. EOD.

your frustration and anger are palpable. 

you and uppili lost long ago when I correctly refused to be drawn into a discussion of other religions in this thread that rashmun started about his hindu goddess.

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

** see ** above for my responses.

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

my apologies for not being careful. please replace the sentence with the word "object" in my post with the following:

do you find this particular image rashmun posted objectionable, or do you find the general notion of the depiction of a figure of divinity vanquishing the forces of evil, objectionable? in other words is your reaction  specific to just this image, or the entire genre of art based on this theme?

i did not then, and i am not now, trying to insinuate anything. it is a question born out of genuine curiosity and i am hoping we can have an interesting and polite conversation about this.

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

I see. was this around the same time you and douchemun developed your long term ATM (ass to mouth, will save you a laborious search on urban dictionary) relationship that flourishes to this day? and around the same time you stopped your attacks on northindians in appreciation of the submissive hoovering provided by the nutjob from agra and started ranting about sideways screwing telugus and stalking the admin's workplace etc? I'm guessing it is

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

Max, I honestly don't understand the difference between the two questions: (1) "Do you object to this particular image?" and (2) "Do you find the particular image objectionable?

Just asking. No big deal.

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

I see. was this around the same time you and douchemun developed your long term ATM (ass to mouth, will save you a laborious search on urban dictionary) relationship that flourishes to this day? and around the same time you stopped your attacks on northindians in appreciation of the submissive hoovering provided by the nutjob from agra and started ranting about sideways screwing telugus and stalking the admin's workplace etc? I'm guessing it is

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

That defense holds no water. Nothing is written in stone, not even etched in warm butter, that discussions should only be confined to the pictured post when it is used to insinuate that only the Hindus are worshippers of horrid-looking images. The minute you opened that door, Christianity became relevant as a parallel case. In essence, you have lost the debate. EOD.

your frustration and anger are palpable. 

you and uppili lost long ago when I correctly refused to be drawn into a discussion of other religions in this thread that rashmun started about his hindu goddess.

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

** see ** above for my responses.

Hahaha ... nothing amuses me more than a person who is horrified by a picture of Kali, and yet derives the greatest pleasure in describing what disturbs him in the most graphic, detailed way possible.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

swapna made a fair point -- that he didn't object to the picture that rashmun posted. in fact he did not. he said he merely found it distasteful. so my characterization of what he said is inaccurate.

objectionable means finding something distasteful. that is in fact the word i had originally intended to use, but got distracted with something else, and when i finally did post, i said he objected to the image.  in any case, i stand corrected. i am still interested in learning whether he only finds that particular image distasteful (i do too for its crude and kitschy nature), or if he finds the entire genre of durga/mahishasura mardini art including ancient sculptures distasteful.  the latter can be found in many museums around the world and is one of many iconographic themes in hindu art alongside nataraja, ganesha etc.

it also finds expression in carnatic music (less important since it is more about music than about libretto) and bharathanatyam (more important), which he has said he enjoys.

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

I see. was this around the same time you and douchemun developed your long term ATM (ass to mouth, will save you a laborious search on urban dictionary) relationship that flourishes to this day? and around the same time you stopped your attacks on northindians in appreciation of the submissive hoovering provided by the nutjob from agra and started ranting about sideways screwing telugus and stalking the admin's workplace etc? I'm guessing it is

from what i recall Swapna had expressed his poor opinion of Telugus on Sulekha itself. Secondly, Swapna continues to have a poor opinion, in general , of north indians. Third i had developed cordial relations with Swapna on Sulekha itself.

Whereas, according to Swapna, Max's behavior has changed after the transition from Sulekha to this forum took place.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

can you split semantics a bit finer please?

he's been complaining about how that picture is scary, evil and makes him pee in his depends late at night etc etc. does it matter whehter he objected to it or found it objectionable? it's strange to see someone with strong opinions on most things bend over backwards to accommodate this IBS fool's gimmickry.

he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

I see. was this around the same time you and douchemun developed your long term ATM (ass to mouth, will save you a laborious search on urban dictionary) relationship that flourishes to this day? and around the same time you stopped your attacks on northindians in appreciation of the submissive hoovering provided by the nutjob from agra and started ranting about sideways screwing telugus and stalking the admin's workplace etc? I'm guessing it is

from what i recall Swapna had expressed his poor opinion of Telugus on Sulekha itself. Secondly, Swapna continues to have a poor opinion, in general , of north indians. Third i had developed cordial relations with Swapna on Sulekha itself.

Whereas, according to Swapna, Max's behavior has changed after the transition from Sulekha to this forum took place.

you dont say! I didnt know you were applying hoover suction back in the '00s itself. wow you must celebrate 5+ yrs of cordial relationship.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

swapna wrote:
he doesn't have any strong opinion anymore. he stopped having strong opinions around the time the glut administrator was here, and you were talking about c*nts.

I see. was this around the same time you and douchemun developed your long term ATM (ass to mouth, will save you a laborious search on urban dictionary) relationship that flourishes to this day? and around the same time you stopped your attacks on northindians in appreciation of the submissive hoovering provided by the nutjob from agra and started ranting about sideways screwing telugus and stalking the admin's workplace etc? I'm guessing it is

from what i recall Swapna had expressed his poor opinion of Telugus on Sulekha itself. Secondly, Swapna continues to have a poor opinion, in general , of north indians. Third i had developed cordial relations with Swapna on Sulekha itself.

Whereas, according to Swapna, Max's behavior has changed after the transition from Sulekha to this forum took place.

you dont say! I didnt know you were applying hoover suction back in the '00s itself. wow you must celebrate 5+ yrs of cordial relationship.

Propa, are you not afraid of the wrath of Lord Venkateswara when you keep directing abusive filth at other posters?

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

swapna wrote:

your frustration and anger are palpable. 

you and uppili lost long ago when I correctly refused to be drawn into a discussion of other religions in this thread that rashmun started about his hindu goddess.

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

** see ** above for my responses.

Hahaha ... nothing amuses me more than a person who is horrified by a picture of Kali, and yet derives the greatest pleasure in describing what disturbs him in the most graphic, detailed way possible.

your coments are illogical. the shock and revulsion resulting from that picture of kali will cause many people who are not hindus to comment about it in amazement.

more interesting is the hypocrisy of a person, all of whose education was received at madras christian college and saint stephen's college, who was a resident of saint thomas's hall, and whose most intimate moments in life were and are shared with christians. 

almost surely, there are pictures of jesus in his home - there has never been one in mine - and none of a "revered" goddess who severs human heads and drinks fresh, human blood. 

could that be because the craven hypocrite will gratuitously support the vulgarity of that picture only at a forum where nearly all the members are staunch hindus? are we witnessing caste duty being performed?

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

** see ** above for my responses.

Hahaha ... nothing amuses me more than a person who is horrified by a picture of Kali, and yet derives the greatest pleasure in describing what disturbs him in the most graphic, detailed way possible.

your coments are illogical. the shock and revulsion resulting from that picture of kali will cause many people who are not hindus to comment about it in amazement.

more interesting is the hypocrisy of a person, all of whose education was received at madras christian college and saint stephen's college, who was a resident of saint thomas's hall, and whose most intimate moments in life were and are shared with christians. 

almost surely, there are pictures of jesus in his home - there has never been one in mine - and none of a "revered" goddess who severs human heads and drinks fresh, human blood. 

could that be because the craven hypocrite will gratuitously support the vulgarity of that picture only at a forum where nearly all the members are staunch hindus? are we witnessing caste duty being performed?

Gee whiz ... (sorry, I couldn't help bursting out with laughter!) ... did I touch a nerve?

Were you seething, foaming at the mouth, while indulging in this invective harangue?

Did you spill your morning quota of prune juice in the process?

You lost the argument fair and square but, being the sore loser that you are, you just can't let it rest.

There is no use in your trying to draw me into further discussions baiting me with your patented words like hypocrisy, ingratiation and gratuity.

We are done.

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

As you would never (ever) criticize/comment on Jesus or Allah, it is only apt to ask you is whichever thread you post.

** it is undoubtedly one's freedom to NOT make a comment, and it is your freedom to make one. are you not competent enough to make appropriate comments and convincing arguments on your own?

It is still not as scary as stoning Mina.  What do you think?

** "stoning mina?" ah, you think that thr hajj pilgrims are stoning some  woman called mina kumari? not at all. mina, I understand, is a town near makkah, where the saudis have built three walls at which the pilgrims throw pebbles, in commemoration of an event in their prophet abraham's life. explain why that ritual, being performed in far away saudi arabia is scary to you.

BTW, as a hindu I am offended and by your own guidelines you should cease to bad mouth Kali.

** "offended" is not the right word; "angry" and "insecure" that I described the picture of the goddess that rashmun posted as disgusting, are probably more apt descriptions of your feelings.

** worship whomever you want, depict anyone any way you want; post anything you want, but don't be surprised to learn that should you post or support the posting of graphical images of human heads, arms, hearts, or testicles, apparently wrenched off a live human being, and blood being collected in a bowl, and.body parts strewn about for consumption, I will ask questions on not only your taste, but your intelligence, and your beliefs, no matter what the symbolism is.

** yes, I have guidelines, but they don't include silence at just-severed human heads held by the hair and spewing blood and innards.

** see ** above for my responses.

Hahaha ... nothing amuses me more than a person who is horrified by a picture of Kali, and yet derives the greatest pleasure in describing what disturbs him in the most graphic, detailed way possible.

your coments are illogical. the shock and revulsion resulting from that picture of kali will cause many people who are not hindus to comment about it in amazement.

more interesting is the hypocrisy of a person, all of whose education was received at madras christian college and saint stephen's college, who was a resident of saint thomas's hall, and whose most intimate moments in life were and are shared with christians. 

almost surely, there are pictures of jesus in his home - there has never been one in mine - and none of a "revered" goddess who severs human heads and drinks fresh, human blood. 

could that be because the craven hypocrite will gratuitously support the vulgarity of that picture only at a forum where nearly all the members are staunch hindus? are we witnessing caste duty being performed?

Gee whiz ... (sorry, I couldn't help bursting out with laughter!) ... did I touch a nerve?

Were you seething, foaming at the mouth, while indulging in this invective harangue?

Did you spill your morning quota of prune juice in the process?

You lost the argument fair and square but, being the sore loser that you are, you just can't let it rest.

There is no use in your trying to draw me into further discussions baiting me with your patented words like hypocrisy, ingratiation and gratuity.

We are done.

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:

swapna wrote:

** see ** above for my responses.

Hahaha ... nothing amuses me more than a person who is horrified by a picture of Kali, and yet derives the greatest pleasure in describing what disturbs him in the most graphic, detailed way possible.

your coments are illogical. the shock and revulsion resulting from that picture of kali will cause many people who are not hindus to comment about it in amazement.

more interesting is the hypocrisy of a person, all of whose education was received at madras christian college and saint stephen's college, who was a resident of saint thomas's hall, and whose most intimate moments in life were and are shared with christians. 

almost surely, there are pictures of jesus in his home - there has never been one in mine - and none of a "revered" goddess who severs human heads and drinks fresh, human blood. 

could that be because the craven hypocrite will gratuitously support the vulgarity of that picture only at a forum where nearly all the members are staunch hindus? are we witnessing caste duty being performed?

Gee whiz ... (sorry, I couldn't help bursting out with laughter!) ... did I touch a nerve?

Were you seething, foaming at the mouth, while indulging in this invective harangue?

Did you spill your morning quota of prune juice in the process?

You lost the argument fair and square but, being the sore loser that you are, you just can't let it rest.

There is no use in your trying to draw me into further discussions baiting me with your patented words like hypocrisy, ingratiation and gratuity.

We are done.

I heard a yelp, and saw your tail tucked firmly between your legs. we are not necessarily "done."

seven wrote:Swapna - you comment on one religion's goddess, you open the door to all religious pictures, Jesus included. 

You lost the argument. Judgement in favor of goodCitizen. 

Anyone with a positive IQ can see you lost. If you can't see it, we'll know why. 

But I think you see it. You just don't like what you see.

swapna wrote:

seven wrote:Swapna - you comment on one religion's goddess, you open the door to all religious pictures, Jesus included. 

You lost the argument. Judgement in favor of goodCitizen. 

Anyone with a positive IQ can see you lost. If you can't see it, we'll know why. 

But I think you see it. You just don't like what you see.

no, woman, look up at the title and original poster of this thread, and you'll see that it was rashmun who opened the door. he was also the first to make the irrelevant comment on christian images, which I stated to be just that, and ignored.

it's interesting to see you whine about the doors that rashmun opened of his own choice, and gdctzn opened gratuitously (or "gravitationally," as the latter would describe it).