Pandit Nehru was against caste based reservations

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:16 am

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4826/1067/1600/CBB_reservations.jpg

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:25 am

Ironically, Pandit Nehru is one of the heroes of perhaps the most fanatical supporter of caste based reservation on this forum.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:36 am

Its hilarious to see the pro reservation brigade go groundhog when confronted with Pandit Nehru's views on caste based reservations.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:57 am

This is classic Rashmun Method. Nehru believes X, so we all should too.

I am busy for the next couple of hours, so here's someone else you can argue with in the meanwhile. He thinks caste-based reservations should continue for now.

I have mixed views on caste based reservations. I believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation (not indefinitely though)

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:18 am

charvaka wrote:This is classic Rashmun Method. Nehru believes X, so we all should too.

I am busy for the next couple of hours, so here's someone else you can argue with in the meanwhile. He thinks caste-based reservations should continue for now.

I have mixed views on caste based reservations. I believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation (not indefinitely though)

--> My view is

1. Reservation for OBC community is completely unjustified.
2. Reservation for dalits is justified but it is not justified that this go on indefinitely. It has to come to an end and that to in the not too distant future.

--> Nehru is someone for who Charvaka has expressed deep appreciation for in the past so one should understand his anger at not being able to go out of his way to undermine Nehru's credibility lest he undermine his own.

--> Nehru's reasons for why he is against caste based reservations are spot on. He says he wants India to be a first class country in everything and not a country where second raters are encouraged. He also goes on to say that he is angered to learn that sometimes caste and communal considerations are given for promotions.

--> Charvaka has a feudal backward mindset when it comes to caste based reservations. His views amount to 'reverse discrimination' since he has earlier argued that he does not see the caste system dying and claims that he foresees caste based reservations continue indefinitely. This is a sure recipe for disaster where India is concerned.

--> The 'classic Rashmun Method' of which Charvaka speaks is the same method which was used to write various philosophy posts and other posts for which Charvaka expressed deep admiration and appreciation in the past. His lampooning the same method after having developed a disagreement with me over Diggy Raja only indicates his cheap mindset and his upbringing and the values with which he was brought up. He has earlier confessed that his own uncle is a fraudulent priest who goes around befooling and cheating people. In earlier discussions with CH poster Seva he has claimed that many other members of his family are fraudulent priests:

http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/attention-seva-1122843.htm

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:47 am

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_jawaharlal-nehru-had-warned-against-aarakshan_1575691

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:52 am

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-04-11/news/27699322_1_reservation-caste-education

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:05 am

ah now you're back to your normal resting state -- i.e. using the ideas of eminent dead people to make or buttress your ideas.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:17 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ah now you're back to your normal resting state -- i.e. using the ideas of eminent dead people to make or buttress your ideas.

--> This method of using ideas of eminent people to buttress your argument is a method that has been widely used by Indian philosophers. The Pamidimarri Method of insisting on a debate based on the views of another poster (posting on the same forum!) are inherently fraudulent. PP wants a debate with me on something that Merlot has written. But why should i debate Merlot's views with PP when i can easily do so with Merlot?

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:24 am

why don't you instead debate just ideas based on their merits and demerits without calling upon eminent dead people? is that such a revolutionary idea? i'm not opposed to using dead people's ideas, so long as they further the argument; but i'm not going to be convinced about the merit of an idea simply because an eminent dead person put it forth. i need to see its merits or demerits for myself.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 9:40 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:why don't you instead debate just ideas based on their merits and demerits without calling upon eminent dead people? is that such a revolutionary idea? i'm not opposed to using dead people's ideas, so long as they further the argument; but i'm not going to be convinced about the merit of an idea simply because an eminent dead person put it forth. i need to see its merits or demerits for myself.

--> using ideas and views of eminent people who have studied a problem or issue on which you are expressing your view can buttress your own argument. This is also the method used by the Indian philosophers and it has also been used by Indian scientists.

--> When talking on a particularly contentious scientific topic, it is not uncommon for a scientist to refer to the views and ideas of eminent scientists who have expressed views and ideas supporting the view one is trying to put forward. For instance, when there are two schools of thought about a particular phenomenon.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:07 am

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ah now you're back to your normal resting state -- i.e. using the ideas of eminent dead people to make or buttress your ideas.

--> This method of using ideas of eminent people to buttress your argument is a method that has been widely used by Indian philosophers. The Pamidimarri Method of insisting on a debate based on the views of another poster (posting on the same forum!) are inherently fraudulent. PP wants a debate with me on something that Merlot has written. But why should i debate Merlot's views with PP when i can easily do so with Merlot?

--> When i refused to debate with PP on this forum about Merlot's views (since i can easily do so with Merlot), PP claimed that 'you are scared'. Pamidimarri Method!

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:25 pm

Rashmun wrote:Nehru is someone for who Charvaka has expressed deep appreciation for in the past so one should understand his anger at not being able to go out of his way to undermine Nehru's credibility lest he undermine his own.

Unlike you, I don't rely on dead people's views to make up my mind. My support for caste-based reservations is not because I dismiss your or Nehru's arguments. As I have said many times on CH -- including to you -- I think there is more to the problem than meets the eye. I have said in the past, and I stand by it; in an ideal world, we wouldn't need any reservations, in a less ideal world, we wouldn't need reservations to be caste-based, they could be based on one's position on the economic ladder. In the real world of India, caste-based reservations with the creamy layer exemption are on the whole good, and the most pragmatic solution to the problem of socioeconomic disparities between groups. Clamoring for their removal because they are not perfect raises my suspicions of caste-based interest on the part of "upper" castes to regain a level playing field, when the playing field was nowhere near level for millennia, and it has been set to favor the other side for just about 60 years now.

Your position on reservations is to use your own words, at best mixed. Yet why do you bring up reservations every time you feel that you have been bested in an argument by me? Because you see that my position on caste-based reservations is unpopular on this forum dominated by "upper" castes, because the position runs counter to their economic interests. You are afraid to state your own views on the treatment of Hindu widows even after all your excuses run out and Merlot shows up, but you will raise a completely tangential topic just because you want to highlight something that makes me unpopular. Reminds me of your attempt to call charvakas names because of my handle name!

My position on caste-based reservations is based on principle, and it is not something I am uncomfortable talking about. I welcome the debate.

From the government's point of view, what do you think is more easily verifiable / reliably known about individuals in India? Their caste or income? What is easier to fake in India, caste of income?

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:using ideas and views of eminent people who have studied a problem or issue on which you are expressing your view can buttress your own argument. This is also the method used by the Indian philosophers and it has also been used by Indian scientists.

You use filthy abuses for other debaters because Indian philosophers from medieval times did so. You drag the families of posters into debates because Indian philosophers from medieval times did so. You think citing the views of eminent dead people, just because the other person respects that dead person, is a winning argument in a debate about ideas -- again because Indian philosophers from medieval times did so.

Perhaps you would be more comfortable debating with people from before the 10th century CE.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 12:32 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ah now you're back to your normal resting state -- i.e. using the ideas of eminent dead people to make or buttress your ideas.

--> This method of using ideas of eminent people to buttress your argument is a method that has been widely used by Indian philosophers. The Pamidimarri Method of insisting on a debate based on the views of another poster (posting on the same forum!) are inherently fraudulent. PP wants a debate with me on something that Merlot has written. But why should i debate Merlot's views with PP when i can easily do so with Merlot?

Ah, the dragging-in-uncle-and-other-family-members technique did not work. The insulting-charvakas-because-their-name-matches-my-handle-name technique didn't work. The latest technique is to use my real name on an online forum. Well, good luck with this one, but I have a feeling it's not gonna work either.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:06 pm

charvaka wrote:Your position on reservations is to use your own words, at best mixed.

And i have explain why it is 'mixed'. It is because i support caste based reservations, temporarily (but not indefinitely) for dalits, but i also think giving caste based reservations to OBC hindus is a complete fraud.

One of the interesting features of the Pamidimarri Method is the ability to make tall claims about detecting contradictions where none exist. This necessitates that the user of the Pamidimarri Method is periodically lodging his foot firmly in his mouth.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:13 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:ah now you're back to your normal resting state -- i.e. using the ideas of eminent dead people to make or buttress your ideas.

--> This method of using ideas of eminent people to buttress your argument is a method that has been widely used by Indian philosophers. The Pamidimarri Method of insisting on a debate based on the views of another poster (posting on the same forum!) are inherently fraudulent. PP wants a debate with me on something that Merlot has written. But why should i debate Merlot's views with PP when i can easily do so with Merlot?
Ah, the dragging-in-uncle-and-other-family-members technique did not work. The insulting-charvakas-because-their-name-matches-my-handle-name technique didn't work. The latest technique is to use my real name on an online forum. Well, good luck with this one, but I have a feeling it's not gonna work either.

--> if you notice i am not using your full name not only in my posts but also in the titles of my posts. I could have easily made post after post with your full name in the title of my posts so that it would have shown up in a google search. There are many Pamidimarris so you do not have to worry about someone doing a google search with this name.
--> I also recall you maintaining a complete silence when Hellsangel was using my name in several of his posts.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:16 pm

Rashmun wrote:I could have easily made post after post with your full name in the title of my posts so that it would have shown up in a google search.

You are welcome to do whatever feels like appropriate conduct to you. After all, you take your ethical cues from people who lived in the Middle Ages.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:21 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:I could have easily made post after post with your full name in the title of my posts so that it would have shown up in a google search.
You are welcome to do whatever feels like appropriate conduct to you. After all, you take your ethical cues from people who lived in the Middle Ages.

Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in does not explain you objecting to the coinage of the term 'Pamidimarri Method'.Having said that, i will henceforth refer to this method as the PP Method. I hope you have no objection to this term.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:And i have explain why it is 'mixed'. It is because i support caste based reservations, temporarily (but not indefinitely) for dalits, but i also think giving caste based reservations to OBC hindus is a complete fraud.

I was being generous to you when I used your own word "mixed" to describe your position. But you don't appreciate such generosity, and insist on getting your position more thoroughly ridiculed. So here is what you asked for.

Rashmun, 5 years ago, when I was on a hiatus from CH: I agree with Seva in that reservation needs to be abolished now. http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/economic-disparity-among-brahmins-and-the-reverse-discrimination-in-jobs.htm#119511

Rashmun, 4 years ago, when I asked you about your views: I believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation. http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/brahmin-bigots-and-their-fake-concern-for-freedom-of-speech-865781.htm#866125

Feel free to respond with 3-4 posts with multiple paragraphs in each. Expound on my real name, my family, upbringing, etc. Don't answer the questions I asked you about the substance of the debate, though, because that will require actual discussion of the topic at hand, not just trying to "make charvaka unpopular."

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 1:38 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:And i have explain why it is 'mixed'. It is because i support caste based reservations, temporarily (but not indefinitely) for dalits, but i also think giving caste based reservations to OBC hindus is a complete fraud.
I was being generous to you when I used your own word "mixed" to describe your position. But you don't appreciate such generosity, and insist on getting your position more thoroughly ridiculed. So here is what you asked for.

Rashmun, 5 years ago, when I was on a hiatus from CH: I agree with Seva in that reservation needs to be abolished now. http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/philosophy/economic-disparity-among-brahmins-and-the-reverse-discrimination-in-jobs.htm#119511

Rashmun, 4 years ago, when I asked you about your views: I believe dalits are entitled to caste based reservation. http://forums.sulekha.com/forums/coffeehouse/brahmin-bigots-and-their-fake-concern-for-freedom-of-speech-865781.htm#866125

Feel free to respond with 3-4 posts with multiple paragraphs in each. Expound on my real name, my family, upbringing, etc. Don't answer the questions I asked you about the substance of the debate, though, because that will require actual discussion of the topic at hand, not just trying to "make charvaka unpopular."

I would just like to point out that one's position on complex issues evolves over a period of time with greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:07 pm

Rashmun wrote:Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in

this is an unmoderated and, for all purposes, unadministered forum. in case of exceptions, you can write to charvaka directly and he will consider (as he did for TAZ and me and maybe for a few more). in the current context, his constant monitoring, active intervention or continual warnings should never be assumed, for, repeat, THIS IS AN UNMODERATED AND PRACTICALLY UNADMINISTERED FORUM. the duties you expected him to perform in your post above asked of him to act as a moderator!. ironically it was maxentropy_man who objected to your name being repeatedly dragged by HA -- not you! charvaka did exceed his brief by escalating the issue just for you!

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:32 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in

this is an unmoderated and, for all purposes, unadministered forum. in case of exceptions, you can write to charvaka directly and he will consider (as he did for TAZ and me and maybe for a few more). in the current context, his constant monitoring, active intervention or continual warnings should never be assumed, for, repeat, THIS IS AN UNMODERATED AND PRACTICALLY UNADMINISTERED FORUM. the duties you expected him to perform in your post above asked of him to act as a moderator!. ironically it was maxentropy_man who objected to your name being repeatedly dragged by HA -- not you! charvaka did exceed his brief by escalating the issue just for you!

In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me, one would have expected Charvaka to ask HA to refrain from using my full name since he is now objecting to me using his surname. Which gives more complete information about a poster? The full name or the surname?
This has nothing to do with Charvaka having Admin powers in this forum.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in

this is an unmoderated and, for all purposes, unadministered forum. in case of exceptions, you can write to charvaka directly and he will consider (as he did for TAZ and me and maybe for a few more). in the current context, his constant monitoring, active intervention or continual warnings should never be assumed, for, repeat, THIS IS AN UNMODERATED AND PRACTICALLY UNADMINISTERED FORUM. the duties you expected him to perform in your post above asked of him to act as a moderator!. ironically it was maxentropy_man who objected to your name being repeatedly dragged by HA -- not you! charvaka did exceed his brief by escalating the issue just for you!

In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me, one would have expected Charvaka to ask HA to refrain from using my full name since he is now objecting to me using his surname. Which gives more complete information about a poster? The full name or the surname?
This has nothing to do with Charvaka having Admin powers in this forum.

i would also like to point out that i have ceased using his surname when he objected to this.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:43 pm

rashmun: in science you never say, "you have shown appreciation for the views of so-and-so in the past, hence you must also accept this pronouncement by him". prior work is useful only in so far as it serves the purpose of improving our understanding. if new understanding shows prior work to be partially or completely wrong, out the window the old theory goes. there are no holy cows.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:51 pm

Rashmun wrote:In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me,

Which thread was that, again?

Rashmun wrote:he is now objecting to me using his surname.

Where did I "object" to your doing so? I merely wished you good luck and warned that the technique may not work. Sir, you need to slow down and read what people are writing, before typing a long-winded reply (or 4) to something you haven't tried to understand.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:52 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:rashmun: in science you never say, "you have shown appreciation for the views of so-and-so in the past, hence you must also accept this pronouncement by him". prior work is useful only in so far as it serves the purpose of improving our understanding. if new understanding shows prior work to be partially or completely wrong, out the window the old theory goes. there are no holy cows.

In my opinion, Pandit Nehru's thoughts on caste based reservation improves our understanding of this issue. There are many ignoramuses who form dogmatic opinions on this issue. The views of people like Nehru help everyone to form a better understanding of this issue so as to enable us to form the correct opinion on this issue.

You are mistaken if you think i blindly accept everything said by people i respect. For instance, there is a lot of nonsense in Sankhya and Nyaya-Vaisesika philosophies. I accept the rational portion of these philosophies and reject the nonsense.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:53 pm

Rashmun wrote:I would just like to point out that one's position on complex issues evolves over a period of time with greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

And with the dynamics of who that "one" wants to support, make peace with or oppose.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:54 pm

Rashmun wrote:
I would just like to point out that one's position on complex issues evolves over a period of time with greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

that's very wise, but i hope you espouse that attitude always, and not just when your arguments become untenable.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:You are mistaken if you think i blindly accept everything said by people i respect.

Exhibit A: Diggy Raja and his "bitch-slapping" of people, not to mention all his other "comedian" / "clown" like comments.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:55 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
I would just like to point out that one's position on complex issues evolves over a period of time with greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

that's very wise, but i hope you espouse that attitude always, and not just when your arguments become untenable.

. That's good advice that I hope Rashmun takes.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 2:58 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
I would just like to point out that one's position on complex issues evolves over a period of time with greater knowledge and greater wisdom.

that's very wise, but i hope you espouse that attitude always, and not just when your arguments become untenable.

--> The qualification is that what is untenable to you may not be untenable to me and vice versa. Consider your claim that you have more knowledge about the problems of female abortions and female infanticide in Tamil Nadu than a working professional who is working on this problem full time in Tamil Nadu (while you are placed in the US). I found your claim untenable.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:01 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me,
Which thread was that, again?

Rashmun wrote:he is now objecting to me using his surname.
Where did I "object" to your doing so? I merely wished you good luck and warned that the technique may not work. Sir, you need to slow down and read what people are writing, before typing a long-winded reply (or 4) to something you haven't tried to understand.

--> You made it very clear that my usage of the term 'Pamidimarri Method' was an unfair tactic. Do you agree or disagree with this?

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:04 pm

Rashmun wrote:You made it very clear that my usage of the term 'Pamidimarri Method' was an unfair tactic. Do you agree or disagree with this?

When did I say it was an "unfair" tactic? I merely compared them to your other tactics like dragging in family members and insulting charvakas hoping that would somehow stick to me! Do you think those other tactics are unfair? Are you worried about how you come across with these tactics? Don't be. Be comfortable with who you are.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:05 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me,
Which thread was that, again?

Rashmun wrote:he is now objecting to me using his surname.
Where did I "object" to your doing so? I merely wished you good luck and warned that the technique may not work. Sir, you need to slow down and read what people are writing, before typing a long-winded reply (or 4) to something you haven't tried to understand.

--> It was not one thread, but several threads in which HA used my full name and in at least some of them both HA and you were 'discussing' with me. Do you really deny this?

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:07 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:You made it very clear that my usage of the term 'Pamidimarri Method' was an unfair tactic. Do you agree or disagree with this?
When did I say it was an "unfair" tactic? I merely compared them to your other tactics like dragging in family members and insulting charvakas hoping that would somehow stick to me! Do you think those other tactics are unfair? Are you worried about how you come across with these tactics? Don't be. Be comfortable with who you are.

Of course they are unfair. Just as unfair as you coining the phrase 'Rashmun Method', describing it in a derogatory fashion, and then using this phrase in post after post so as to discredit me. All because you did not like my posts on Diggy Raja. Sadly for you, in the process of going about undermining my credibility you managed to undermine your own credibility.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me,
Which thread was that, again?

Rashmun wrote:he is now objecting to me using his surname.
Where did I "object" to your doing so? I merely wished you good luck and warned that the technique may not work. Sir, you need to slow down and read what people are writing, before typing a long-winded reply (or 4) to something you haven't tried to understand.

--> It was not one thread, but several threads in which HA used my full name and in at least some of them both HA and you were 'discussing' with me. Do you really deny this?

Why do you expect me to object to HA using your name, when I don't even object you using my name? Like I said, good luck with the new tactic!

https://such.forumotion.com/t2718-disclosure-of-posters-personal-information

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:10 pm

Rashmun wrote:Of course they are unfair.

Whatever floats your boat, Rashmun. I don't whine about your tactics being unfair. You use the tactics you are comfortable with. I am happy with the tactics I use. People can see the differences.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:11 pm

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in

this is an unmoderated and, for all purposes, unadministered forum. in case of exceptions, you can write to charvaka directly and he will consider (as he did for TAZ and me and maybe for a few more). in the current context, his constant monitoring, active intervention or continual warnings should never be assumed, for, repeat, THIS IS AN UNMODERATED AND PRACTICALLY UNADMINISTERED FORUM. the duties you expected him to perform in your post above asked of him to act as a moderator!. ironically it was maxentropy_man who objected to your name being repeatedly dragged by HA -- not you! charvaka did exceed his brief by escalating the issue just for you!

Thanks for making this important point. I didn't want to say this myself, because the moment I use the word admin, Rashmun will pretend that I am threatening him as admin.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:12 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:In threads where both Hellsangel and Charvaka were simultaneously attacking me,
Which thread was that, again?

Rashmun wrote:he is now objecting to me using his surname.
Where did I "object" to your doing so? I merely wished you good luck and warned that the technique may not work. Sir, you need to slow down and read what people are writing, before typing a long-winded reply (or 4) to something you haven't tried to understand.

--> It was not one thread, but several threads in which HA used my full name and in at least some of them both HA and you were 'discussing' with me. Do you really deny this?
Why do you expect me to object to HA using your name, when I don't even object you using my name? Like I said, good luck with the new tactic!

https://such.forumotion.com/t2718-disclosure-of-posters-personal-information

--> But did you not place this tactic in the same category as my referring to your uncle? With respect to your uncle, you have actually appealed to me to stop referring to him in the past. Do you deny this?

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:14 pm

charvaka wrote:
Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Your complete silence when Hellsangel was using my full name in several of his posts in threads in which you were participating in

this is an unmoderated and, for all purposes, unadministered forum. in case of exceptions, you can write to charvaka directly and he will consider (as he did for TAZ and me and maybe for a few more). in the current context, his constant monitoring, active intervention or continual warnings should never be assumed, for, repeat, THIS IS AN UNMODERATED AND PRACTICALLY UNADMINISTERED FORUM. the duties you expected him to perform in your post above asked of him to act as a moderator!. ironically it was maxentropy_man who objected to your name being repeatedly dragged by HA -- not you! charvaka did exceed his brief by escalating the issue just for you!
Thanks for making this important point. I didn't want to say this myself, because the moment I use the word admin, Rashmun will pretend that I am threatening him as admin.

This is not about you as an Admin. Whatever authority you had is now lost because of your insistence on getting into fights and in going out of your way to undermine the credibility of other posters. If you take any action against any poster--particularly a poster who has been on Sulekha CH since 1996--this forum is doomed and you know it.

by Hellsangel Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:16 pm

Whatever happened to the new forums you had started, Mr. Rashman?

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:18 pm

Rashmun, on topic after topic, you have had to eat humble pie in the last several days (dowry deaths thread that you started, your own playing of the caste card, your own view of reservations, etc.) Yet you keep coming back. On this topic, I am tired of the personal nonsense. If you want to debate my reasons for supporting caste-based reservations, let me know: the questions that you need to answer are right here on this thread. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day and try not to dig yet another hole for yourself.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:But did you not place this tactic in the same category as my referring to your uncle? With respect to your uncle, you have actually appealed to me to stop referring to him in the past. Do you deny this?

Please, get some lessons in elementary logic. Placing two things in the same category does not mean they both need to be treated the same way. The domestic cat and the tiger are in the same category in one sense, but you don't pet the tiger. I explicitly bid you good luck with using my real name. So stop whining about this, and get a move on with your day.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:21 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Of course they are unfair.
Whatever floats your boat, Rashmun. I don't whine about your tactics being unfair. You use the tactics you are comfortable with. I am happy with the tactics I use. People can see the differences.

--> Actually you have whined in the past when you appealed to me to stop making references to your uncle and also when you placed my using your surname in the same category as my referring to your uncle.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:24 pm

Rashmun wrote:This is not about you as an Admin. Whatever authority you had is now lost because of your insistence on getting into fights and in going out of your way to undermine the credibility of other posters. If you take any action against any poster--particularly a poster who has been on Sulekha CH since 1996--this forum is doomed and you know it.

All your bluster against me rings hollow for one reason. You know what it is. You not only trusted my judgment when you moved to this forum, but you still trust my judgment by being here. Actions speak louder than words, and your being here is proof in itself of your trust in my judgment.

When you started your own forum, you were still delusional enough to think people would move there with time. I hope you recognize now how much people trust you -- and why.

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:29 pm

Rashmun wrote:
--> The qualification is that what is untenable to you may not be untenable to me and vice versa. Consider your claim that you have more knowledge about the problems of female abortions and female infanticide in Tamil Nadu than a working professional who is working on this problem full time in Tamil Nadu (while you are placed in the US). I found your claim untenable.

i don't remember saying i have more knowledge about the issue than her. i think i said (paraphrasing myself since i am feeling too lazy to go and look up my own post) that she seems to have just discovered the issue while i have been interested in it a long time. the reason i didn't spend a whole lot of time on the article or troubled myself to read her writing is that she didn't seem, at first blush, to offer any new insights. that some locations in TN like salem have terrible gender ratios is old news. does her research throw any light on the underlying causes?

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:30 pm

charvaka wrote:Rashmun, on topic after topic, you have had to eat humble pie in the last several days (dowry deaths thread that you started, your own playing of the caste card, your own view of reservations, etc.) Yet you keep coming back. On this topic, I am tired of the personal nonsense. If you want to debate my reasons for supporting caste-based reservations, let me know: the questions that you need to answer are right here on this thread. Otherwise, enjoy the rest of your day and try not to dig yet another hole for yourself.

Another aspect of the PP Method is to try and project a defeat as though it is a victory. When PP went out of his way to label me a casteist, little did he realize that he would get the 'casteist' tag labelled on him.

In my case PP's idiotic claim that i am a casteist is laughable since i have consistently advocated inter caste marriages and the destruction of the caste system.

PP on the other hand is a strong supporter of caste based reservations continuing indefinitely for OBC hindus and dalits; this of course means the perpetuation of the caste system indefinitely. And it also means that PP is a casteist.

by charvaka Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:34 pm

Rashmun wrote:a poster who has been on Sulekha CH since 1996

Oh, you were? How did you accomplish that? You were on an online community a full two years before the community was founded! Congrats Rashmun, Congrats Sonia, Congrats Sania.

by Guest Tue Jan 10, 2012 3:38 pm

charvaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:a poster who has been on Sulekha CH since 1996
Oh, you were? How did you accomplish that? You were on an online community a full two years before the community was founded! Congrats Rashmun, Congrats Sonia, Congrats Sania.

Sorry, 1998. Kris and Huzefa Kapasi were also around at that time. PP Method to discredit me fails yet again!

by Sponsored content