April 29, 2002

The arguments continue....

1. if you cannot vote down the same person: Could I ? In this setup ? Does my vote count ? Parties 'd' and 'b' (which are mirror images) can still form a coalition - and make my vote absurd. That is only to give an example. I saw it as a question that has been asked for the heck of telling "you and I are the setup". And I chose not to reply to that. Well, I might not be justified.

• If you think parties can make your vote absurd, why not stand for election and get your point across if the point is pertinent and valuable enough. I guess this is what the Krishna you are so fond of quoting said to Arjuna. You have to perform your duty under all circumstances than to run away or wait for a better war which you can fight on your terms.

You can again say that everyone will sideline you then. Well, the system has given you enough freedom to take the stage for yourself. Now if you cannot take it, that is not the fault of the system and it is also not the fault of the system that the people who are in it misuse it, misuse is the counterpart of freedom. You can misuse the system for the good of the people as much as the bad. So, is the problem that the system gives you too much freedom?

2. I failed to see that intelligence is no different than its artificial counterpart - If I don't mark a passage with the right number then "all" goes hayward :

You can tell "but have you made that attempt? If not then shut up". But I should not reply with "I do this and that". How can I ? I am talking about my private life which CL is least bothered. Or, bothered in a paragraph with a different serial number. Or, what I do could be flimsy enough to fall apart.

• I was asking you to shut up in the case of Nanjappa, for whom you felt bad and you just walked away. I did not ask you to write about Nanjappa and I still maintain that I do not want to know what you do in your private life. But when you voluntarily provide details of your life here that is used as the base for all the compassion that you feel, I do have a right to question it.

You might be the most honourable man on earth ever, but if you commit a murder the law treats you as a murderer not as the most honourable man. Same goes for thoughts, if those thoughts are disagreeable to me, I would not agree with them regardless of how honourable you are or how many others are willing to vouchsafe for you. Hope you get that simple point.

Well, I did not question your integrity or cry hoarse about it just coz someone bothered to question what you believe in, if your integrity gets hurt that easy, well, then the meanings are obvious.

CL does not read more than 2 comments - so how can I reply to point number (6) in comment number '3' ? He can also only cut and paste comments 1 and 2. So FC, _you_ are wrong. You know only to digress and 'float' away.Q: Where is your reply to point 6 ? A: In that same comment box.

• Well, it is not my fault that you did not post the entire comment in one session. Oh yes, that is the fault of the system too, right? As a result I did miss out on # 6 when I was writing the reply. And as far as the Russians are concerned, I will not from this point on answer any questions that you pose back to me when I ask you something.

This is the comment (6) am I with krishna or against ? - CL, you went wrong exactly in one place - that I am with krishna for 'satisfying one definition'. There cannot be a system which can be inconsistent with itself. Krishna did not, for your information, try to eliminate those whom 'he thought or a class thought as being wrong'. No, what I said "wrong doers" is not _wrt_ a system. If jehad terms the west as "wrong doers" - _that_ is relative. Rejection of economic equality in any corner of any portfolio is a _wrong do_ that is 'absolute'. You just cannot deny that. If you do, I will have no more replies. There is no point talking to someone who is not ready to see the first bottleneck.

It is always, in art, in science, in nature, in philosophy, in maslow's laws, in galactic formations .. wherever you point me to, that the exist certain truths that are undeniably absolute. And when that preliminary is not satisfied, you have the reason enough for a "clarify, question, attempt peaceful means, take your weapon" cycle.

And, btw, do you think my post would have been any different if a mohamaddean prophet had enacted the 'Bhagavad gItA' ? do let me know..


• In the first place what you said was Krishna wanted to root out all evil and that is what I am addressing from the first instance, not whatever you come up with later. Answer that first and then we can come around to jehad etc etc. Now, if you run around killing people for what you think is evil, there has to be a definition for that somewhere. And my point is that evil is not absolute, which you too are saying. Economic inequality was not why Krishna sided with the Pandavas. Please do not bend out of shape what I or you have said earlier.

Pray tell me what is this absolute truth you are referring to? I keep hearing about its existence, but what is it? And it looks very silly to me that as you cannot make sense of the primary truth you take to arms with an insufficient comprehension of what it is all about? There is a saying in Malayalam that essentially means that if you cannot get hold of the one who stole the thing, just catch hold of the next person who comes to the scene. This somehow smacks of that. Clap clap!!

It does not have made any difference to me, who enacted whatever anywhere. If I think it is wrong, I have the freedom not to believe in it and to question it. That is the freedom your oh-so-faulty system gives me. And please do not try to give communal overtones to this. For the record I am non-believer, just a very tiny speck on the earth who has trouble comprehending what is seen and known by the senses, leave alone what cannot be.

3. (yes, I know this was not requested for, nevertheless, you have a comment box and I can write - it is not a shrine that I will be un- sacredizing) -- I could employ 100 nanjappas or a 50 more and help them empower. That is norm because I have left out only 1 million other nanjappas. It is an exception however to sit with Nanjappa by Nanjappa in their huts and tell them clearing the sewage is just as good as removing tail recursion from the towers of hanoi problem - that they could earn equal recognition as 'work'.

Dignity Of Labour is an alien in the hearts of millions who have settled - 'such good lifes are not for us'. Empowerment, truly, is in not just mentioning that 'no! that is not true' to them, but also helping them realize it.

• What would you prefer? Being told that you cleaning sewage is a laudable effort or be brave enough to empower him by employing him in something better so that would in turn pay the tuition bills of his children making sure they go on to live better lives? By your terms our politicians are 'Empowering' the whole of the country, they go to rallies and fool a million people by telling them that what they do for a living is as good as 'removing tail recursion from the towers of hanoi problem'. That way you can keep a million slaves and give them daily lectures as to why their effort to the upkeep of the state as important as the meetings held by the King. And if that is empowerment, I am sure you would love to be empowered as a Nanjappa. Guess you got your norms and exceptions pathetically wrong here.

(4) FC, you cannot assume that smilies can be sacrificed when the humour is understood even when it is no underlined or in italics. You have to put a smilie when you say that 'you will get off the screen and shoot CL', because otherwise it reflects your true nature - a psychopath man slaughterer remembering some vaguo krishna.

• You kill me with or without a simile on your face......... The end result is that I died for questioning you. You smiled, smirked... hardly makes a difference. And believe me I do not take it as very funny when someone tells me I'd love to kill you for what you believe in. What if I were to tell you that what you did for the needy was a joke? These are serious issues my friend, they need to be treated seriously, frankly I would not want to be chopped to pieces over someone's joke.

(5) You could say "it is easy to turn a deprived into an animal" but should be ready to be asked "what would you do if you are branded so". You cannot tell that the system has created the deprived in such a cryptic way - "it is easy to turn a deprived into an animal" it seems ! How illogical of you FC, to have appraised CL's post !

• Wordplay does not make for a cryptic system. By the same coin, I can say that the second part of the post that you missed represents something of a bigger evil, but I believe that it is because of a simple oversight and not because of some greater conspiracy theory.

Friend, my point again is that you still are not answering any of my questions, the best you can come up with is more questions in return or vague statements. I have told you before that I am not a very well read person to understand very craftily written things.

So, go through the posts again, give me simple answers or any answers at least, than trying to flood me with a set of questions. Or if you are not interested please feel free to ask me to buzz off (oh damn, the system allows for that too, you can stick to what you belive in and I will respect your beliefs but not agree with them, and please I am not gonna kill you for that, even with a smile on my face)