I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.

Why?

rishi,
while you are waiting for c 's response,
can you enlighten us why you are interested in someone reaction to posts on jm? if jm has a concern about someone's attitude, he is old enough to ask for an explanation.

Big titties, it's the agreement we have as part of the b.a.s.h charter. and yes we are reddies so given to subcaste affiliations and obligations

Paparazzi:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Big titties, it's the agreement we have as part of the b.a.s.h charter. and yes we are reddies so given to subcaste affiliations and obligations

Are you suggesting that Iyers didn't stick together and, hence, were thrown out of TN by DKheads?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Big titties, it's the agreement we have as part of the b.a.s.h charter. and yes we are reddies so given to subcaste affiliations and obligations

Are you suggesting that Iyers didn't stick together and, hence, were thrown out of TN by DKheads?

Sandilya,

The man whom you revere so much the Kanchi Paramacharya was himself an Iyer.

Rishi wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Big titties, it's the agreement we have as part of the b.a.s.h charter. and yes we are reddies so given to subcaste affiliations and obligations

Are you suggesting that Iyers didn't stick together and, hence, were thrown out of TN by DKheads?

Sandilya,

The man whom you revere so much the Kanchi Paramacharya was himself an Iyer.

There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

truthbetold wrote:rishi,
while you are waiting for c 's response,
can you enlighten us why you are interested in someone reaction to posts on jm? if jm has a concern about someone's attitude, he is old enough to ask for an explanation.

Rashmun used to follow that "individualized" thread technique, and in recent months Rishi has adapted it from him.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

truthbetold wrote:rishi,
while you are waiting for c 's response,
can you enlighten us why you are interested in someone reaction to posts on jm? if jm has a concern about someone's attitude, he is old enough to ask for an explanation.

Rashmun used to follow that "individualized" thread technique, and in recent months Rishi has adapted it from him.

The individualized thread technique is as old as the inception of sulekha in 1998. You were not around at that time.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Rishi wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Big titties, it's the agreement we have as part of the b.a.s.h charter. and yes we are reddies so given to subcaste affiliations and obligations

Are you suggesting that Iyers didn't stick together and, hence, were thrown out of TN by DKheads?

Sandilya,

The man whom you revere so much the Kanchi Paramacharya was himself an Iyer.

There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

one of my uncles is an ardent fan of him for his logic and reasoning - like dalai lama. for example, his observation on flowers that blooms in the night are mostly white/pale while those in day time are multicolored and intense/dark.

I always wondered why big titties worshipped the heinous odious anus aka jm, the chief beneficiary of incomprehensiblans's oral massage technique. Anyone have insight into his ward#4 mind?

Propagandhi711 wrote:I always wondered why big titties worshipped the heinous odious anus aka jm, the chief beneficiary of incomprehensiblans's oral massage technique. Anyone have insight into his ward#4 mind?

Ugh. Propa you are disgusting.

Douchemun, you are a dishonest charlatan

Propagandhi711 wrote:Douchemun, you are a dishonest charlatan

Propa where did you pick up your fisherman language?

The same place you picked up your crappy logical skills and tendencies to make obscure and tenuous connections where none exist, and worshipping historical strongmen like a latent homosexual.

Propagandhi711 wrote:The same place you picked up your crappy logical skills and tendencies to make obscure and tenuous connections where none exist, and worshipping historical strongmen like a latent homosexual.

And where would that place be?

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

Dear achachan, I am very impressed that you keep track of Hallmark holidays. Maybe you are not completely wasting the tax payer money of the good people of Texas after all.

Propagandhi711 wrote:I always wondered why big titties worshipped the heinous odious anus aka jm, the chief beneficiary of incomprehensiblans's oral massage technique. Anyone have insight into his ward#4 mind?

pathetic baava! we understand why you writhe in such pain and inflammation ..yeah his other post on sweating must have plucked a raw nerve hitting home with images of stinking unshaven armpits, hairy legs, mustache, bushy cameltoes etc., huh?

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Douchemun, you are a dishonest charlatan

Propa where did you pick up your fisherman language?

hey..there is no question that it's the pride of his genetics goes well with his confessions on watching women with alminum buckets brawling at water pipes at home

garam_kuta wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:I always wondered why big titties worshipped the heinous odious anus aka jm, the chief beneficiary of incomprehensiblans's oral massage technique. Anyone have insight into his ward#4 mind?

pathetic baava! we understand why you writhe in such pain and inflammation ..yeah his other post on sweating must have plucked a raw nerve hitting home with images of stinking unshaven armpits, hairy legs, mustache, bushy cameltoes etc., huh?

Interesting. Froggy is slowly but surely revealing his slimy side.

Rashmun wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:Douchemun, you are a dishonest charlatan

Propa where did you pick up your fisherman language?

Are you saying that fisherman speak bad language?

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:I always wondered why big titties worshipped the heinous odious anus aka jm, the chief beneficiary of incomprehensiblans's oral massage technique. Anyone have insight into his ward#4 mind?

pathetic baava! we understand why you writhe in such pain and inflammation ..yeah his other post on sweating must have plucked a raw nerve hitting home with images of stinking unshaven armpits, hairy legs, mustache, bushy cameltoes etc., huh?

Interesting. Froggy is slowly but surely revealing his slimy side.

hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

garam_kuta wrote:


hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

Dear frog faced wussy Iyer boy, it is well known that as a froggy you are an expert in sucking up the slime with your tongue.

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:


hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

Dear frog faced wussy Iyer boy, it is well known that as a froggy you are an expert in sucking up the slime with your tongue.

shush..that's exclusive for women and its over-booked already

garam_kuta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:


hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

Dear frog faced wussy Iyer boy, it is well known that as a froggy you are an expert in sucking up the slime with your tongue.

shush..ithat's exclusive for women and its over-booked already

Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, you are over booked to suck slime? You seem to be a pimp. Or maybe you just turn tricks.

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:


hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

Dear frog faced wussy Iyer boy, it is well known that as a froggy you are an expert in sucking up the slime with your tongue.

shush..ithat's exclusive for women and its over-booked already

Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, you are over booked to suck slime? You seem to be a pimp. Or maybe you are just turn tricks.

heeheee. burning in jealousy? worried for someone in the list..want to beg for a peek

garam_kuta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:


hee....heee.... hee... ah....its all too comprehensible now huh? sharing the CJ partner's pain suck it up dyk..suck it up

Dear frog faced wussy Iyer boy, it is well known that as a froggy you are an expert in sucking up the slime with your tongue.

shush..ithat's exclusive for women and its over-booked already

Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, you are over booked to suck slime? You seem to be a pimp. Or maybe you just turn tricks.

heeheee. burning in jealousy? worried for someone in the list..want to beg for a peek

Jealous? Of a frog-faced wussy Iyer boy? You are so funny when you are croaking.

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

c'mon.. be good.. answer the question...

dik...dyk..dik...dyk..

garam_kuta wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

c'mon.. be good.. answer the question...

dik...dyk..dik...dyk..

Froggy doing the sucking up slime duty again dilligently.

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.

Why?

How many SuChers truely believe that Carvaka is not biased?

Carvaka is an admin but also a human. He takes sides, likes/dislikes handles, can be a hypocrite like other humans and makes friends or looks down on people. What's wrong with that?

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

c'mon.. be good.. answer the question...

dik...dyk..dik...dyk..

Froggy doing the sucking up slime duty again dilligently.

tut..tut..tut.. behave and if you ae lucky i may consider letting you hold the light

Why froggy? You can only croak in the night but can't see so well?

garam_kuta wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

Jeremiah Mburuburu wrote:

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.
Why?

rishi, it was not a dispute with hellsangel that prompted me to ask hlm/her a question recently; s/he had started a thread about "hottie moms," and following his lead, i asked him if his mom was a hottie. continuing the theme of his thread, i now want to know if he sent his mom a tiny bikini for mother's day. i wonder if she'll send him back a photograph of her hot self in that bikini.

i am sorry to learn that pressulu is angry and upset about the question i asked hellsangel.

c'mon.. be good.. answer the question...

dik...dyk..dik...dyk..

Froggy doing the sucking up slime duty again dilligently.

tut..tut..tut.. behave and if you ae lucky i may consider letting you hold the light

uh.oh.. wait...with your aniti-iyer sentiments and gothra issues..hmmm. i dunno.you may not qualify to hold the light for action

garam_kuta wrote:

uh.oh.. wait...with your aniti-iyer sentiments and gothra issues..hmmm. i dunno.you may not qualify to hold the light for action

Ha ha ha! Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, as usual you are croaking up the wrong tree.

Hellsangel wrote:

garam_kuta wrote:

uh.oh.. wait...with your aniti-iyer sentiments and gothra issues..hmmm. i dunno.you may not qualify to hold the light for action

Ha ha ha! Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, as usual you are croaking up the wrong tree.

your self-denial & delusions have been escalating the last 2 weeks, is what my project summary going to be. let us see

garam_kuta wrote:

your self-denial & delusions have been escalating the last 2 weeks, is what my project summary going to be. let us see

Dear frog-faced wussy Iyer boy, I know you are deeply embarrassed by your frog-face and hide in your research. It is ok, just go see a cosmetic surgeon and smile more in real life.

Rishi wrote:I noticed that when JM has a dispute with Propagandhi or Hells Angel, you interfere and make sarcastic remarks towards JM.

Why?

It doesn't matter who JM has his habitual "disputes" with. I find him among the most hypocritical and bigoted people I have met online, and I like to point out his hypocrisy whenever I can. For years, he mocked northindians for bringing in the family members of a poster in an effort to insult the poster; but he does it himself often. So I asked him if he was a northindian like southindian, or a southerner pretended to be a northindian like southindian is a northindian pretending to be a southerner. I trust he won't answer, because he usually doesn't answer uncomfortable questions.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

Maybe he was just another wussy Iyer boy who was afraid of changing the status quo for women. Did he also believed that widows must shave their heads?

Ha ha ha. I found some interesting teachings by him:

To say that child marriage is harmful to a woman's body is empty talk.
Tough the girl is married as a child she will be ready for conjugal life only after
she becomes physically mature. Besides on many days like the full moon and
the new moon the couple will have to practice continence. Now such
restrictions are not observed. Physical weakness has become more common
among people and neurologists prosper at their expense.
That the system of early marriage led to the existence of child widows is said to
be a blot on the Hindu religion. But the number of children who become
widows is exaggerated, and the implication is that their husbands must
have died when they were in the age-group of 15-25. From what I have
heard there are few deaths in this age-group. So the number of child
widows cannot be many. I would not deny their existence altogether. It
is painful to see even one child becoming a widow. But considering the
great benefits that child marriage brings we must made an allowance for
misfortunes like young girls being widowed.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and dadiwallahs. I have seen on Sulekha & SuCh extremely brilliant fukular scholars who ignore the bulk of Gita and complain about some small thing in it.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and mullahs.

Sure guruvu-gaaru. As someone who follows Hinduism, do you approve of child marriages that the great acharya liked so much?

Interesting views on the subject:

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part18/chap5.htm

"The brahma marriage is for all castes. Other forms of marriage are also permitted for non-Brahmins, also post-puberty marriage. If the idea is to give importance to carnal pleasure these other forms may be permitted. But brahma is the best if the purpose of the marriage samskara is the advancement of the Self."

"In the past the common people did not know how to counter the arguments of the reformists. Even so they did not accept their views thinking it best to follow the practices of their elders, of great men. That is why the bill brought twice by the Rt Hon'ble Srinivasa sastri before the legislative council to amend the marriage act (with reference to the age of marriage) did not receive enough support. Later (Harbilas) Sarda introduced the bill which [on its passage] came to be called the Sarda Act. Many people (in the South) think Sarda was a women and call the law named after him the "Sarda Act". The Central legislative assembly was equally divided on the bill -- 50 percent for and 50 per cent against. Then the British asked one of the nominated members to vote in favour of the bill; and thus the minimum age of marriage for girls was raised by a legal enactment. The bill was passed not on the strength of public opinion but because if the government's intervention. The mind of our British rulers worked thus: "The Congress has been demanding svaraj but we have refused to grant it. Let us give it some satisfaction by being of help in inflicting an injury on the (Hindu) religion. ""

"What is our immediate duty? If the limit fixed by the law for a girl's marriage is 14, 16, 18 or whatever, let us celebrate it immediately on her attaining this age. We must prepare for the day in advance, deciding in the groom and making all other arrangements for the wedding. It would be reprehensible on our part to prolong the period of waiting after a girl begins to feel the biological urge and the consequent emotional disturbance. It is one thing if the marriage gets postponed owing to circumstances beyond our control, but quite another if we do not exert ourselves sufficiently to conduct it in time."

Read more of his outstanding views here:

http://ebooks.sreyas.in/hindu-dharma-chandrasekharendra-saraswati-english.pdf

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and mullahs.

Sure guruvu-gaaru. As someone who follows Hinduism, do you approve of child marriages that the great acharya liked so much?

I don't. May be jihadi scholars like you think that what some prophet writes should be followed 100%!

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and mullahs.

Sure guruvu-gaaru. As someone who follows Hinduism, do you approve of child marriages that the great acharya liked so much?

I don't. May be jihadi scholars like you think that what some prophet writes should be followed 100%!

Guruvu-gaaru, it is easy to get angry at me and call me names. But I am not the one who made claims here of someone being a "great man." Even when I pointed out his regressive views, your response was that "he wrote it for those who follow Hinduism." Hmm.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:There is a book by him (translated into Telugu) on tradition. His knowledge was deep and, hence, he could bring complicated philosophical thoughts to a level that common man could understand and follow. He was a great man.

Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and mullahs.

Sure guruvu-gaaru. As someone who follows Hinduism, do you approve of child marriages that the great acharya liked so much?

I don't. May be jihadi scholars like you think that what some prophet writes should be followed 100%!

Remember that there are different Manus, Brahmas, Indras, etc., for different yugas. The puranas also suggested different behavior patterns for different yugas. And, marriage types are flexible. All these suggest a culture that allows change and progress. While living in Vaivaswata manu's period, there is no need to follow his predecessor's ideas. This is quite unlike what happens when there is a"last prophet" (and any one who has more modern ideas is committing blasphemy). So, nothing is stopping the modern generation to modify old marriage systems and embrace some new (even more kinky) methods. Hinduism quite clearly allows this. I bet the majority of educated Hindus can easily embrace UCC while fukular scholars will find some small negative aspect in everything.

While the Seer's views appear radical, it has to be seen in the light of generally prevalent attitudes towards child marriage around the world at that time. Several factors are influencing the modern view:

1. General level of promiscuity and serial sex partners
2. Changes in female reproductive health and hygiene
3. Material pursuits
4. Choices and preservation of freedom to choose among them

The Hindu dharmic view as far as I can tell is based on:

1. Ascetic lifestyle
2. Renunciation of material desires
3. Spiritual goals above all else
4. A constricted set of choices self-imposed in a spartan context

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Yes, his knowledge was great. That is why he opposed reforming Hindu family law, citing the dharma shastras as sacred and inviolable.

He wrote it for those who follow Hinduism, not for naasthikas, gownwallahs and mullahs.

Sure guruvu-gaaru. As someone who follows Hinduism, do you approve of child marriages that the great acharya liked so much?

I don't. May be jihadi scholars like you think that what some prophet writes should be followed 100%!

Guruvu-gaaru, it is easy to get angry at me and call me names. But I am not the one who made claims here of someone being a "great man." Even when I pointed out his regressive views, your response was that "he wrote it for those who follow Hinduism." Hmm.

I wasn't angry. He was a great man. You are only reading Gita for its violence! I remember some journalist ignoring all the great work of Gandhi and was interested in him sleeping with his niece!