From: fafat@aludra.usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: godura rabble :)
Date: 27 Dec 1992 15:51:03 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Ruchir Godura writes:
>Well, you began the hindu fanatic bit.
>I only pointed out your worma-bashing .. something that made you infer I
>was some kind of communalist. By the same logic, did worma-bashing,
>(since Varma is a vocal defender of Hinduism), make you a Muslim fanatic ?

	You had the nanny-like urge to act a superior net.policeman in the
	Supratic-Asthana tradition when it was none of your concerns. If you
	had wanted to refute any of the arguments with Worma, like Akash did,
	you should have spelled out things instead of  riding a moral
	horse.

>1) I did not ASK anyone to take any stand against muslims, let alone you.

	Here's how you had blabbered once :
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Ayodhya .... Aftermath.
>THEN , talk sense for ONCE, and say something about it.
>What do you mean "with what face and on what grounds ?"
>On the same grounds that we codemn the Ayodhya incident.
>Sheesh.. amazes me as to how hypocritical you can get.
>And you call your Hindus-deserve-what-they-are-getting-in-pak-bangla
>attitude secularism ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Without bothering to read what I had repeatedly posted before this
	"moral preaching" from you. You blatantly assumed that I was 
	anti-Hindu secularist (sic) who was ashamed of being Hindu blah blah.
	I never took that "Hindus deserve.." stand nor did I not talk about
	the paki killings. The "with what face.." was a reaction to the OP who
	wanted the *GOI* to remonstrate against Pak happenings. GOI has NO
	locus standii to do any such thing, after it miserably failed to 
	maintain any decorum and peace in the country. 


>2) I simply reacted to the knee-jerk reaction of everyone on the net to
>condemn all and everyone, and express shame, etc., at Hinduism.

	And so you start branding everyone a "pseudo-secular"... Do you
	anyway understand the meaning of that? Or just moronically equate 
	secular = pseudo, as is in vogue right now? (Not that I'm secular)

>   There was a footnote in the posting that asked all the "ashamed"
>   people to "spare a few words" for the hindus killed in other
>   countries. Does that sound like a fanatic to you ?

	Go and read my response to your above posting (if you've been
	fool enough to save it :) and check.

>> 	mosques and the temples. What were more imp. were the innocent peepuls
>> 	(both Hindu and Muslim) who were getting killed. If your foolhardy
>> 	intelligence says that's "kiss-ass pseudo-secularism", then I can only
>
>Maybe I went too far in my choice of words. But with all your snide
>remarks about "Ram" and "bhakt", which, you thought made you look chic,
>what did you expect to be called. 

	I don't mind the epithets. But the snideness was definitely there,
	precisely because of the asinine predilection with where Ram was
	born when there are so many other pressing problems around. The
	pro-Ram-temple guys call it a symbolic fight against the pandering
	of Muslims by GOI. Why, no balls for a direct agitation for UCC?

>
>> 	pity you. I don't give a rodent's behind as to what your views are on 

>I happen to have the same thoughts about your views, and I never asked
>you to accept mine.

	Don't resort to such childish retorts. I know you can do much better.


>>	and stomachs *you* have. And fancy calling your initial stone a 
>>	"joke", when you tried to act a high-handed net.policeman, a moral 
>>	asshole of a guardian of sci, and stop the Worma-FFT "talk". Take up
>Oh, so asking someone to carry their personal battles to email is
>against nettiquette ?

	And how many times have you done this? Most of the "wars" on sci do
	get personal. Were you sleeping when Worma issued a veiled threat to 
	get HSS into action against me? Or when he was into pathetic acronyms?


>And feeling free to poke personalised humor at any
>and everyone that doesn't agree with you is perfectly OK ?

	Heck, that's one way in flame war.. :) *You* might not resort to
	humour but you resort to "holier-than-thou" attitude with whoever
	does'nt agree with you. 

>  Ridiculing a particular religion is not my idea of secularism. Hence
>  the pseudo. Does that pinch you a lot ?

	Definitely :)  I have'nt ridiculed a religion *to appear
	secular*. I've always gone at Worma because of his hare-brained
	ideas (obviously IMO). You might not like it. But what makes you
	so righteous about it?


>Look who's talking about nose poking. You have one that's probably a
>million times longer than the appendage you might call little Fafat, and

	You've joined the estimable company of Deepak Bose whose perennial
	concern seems to be other peepuls' "little peepuls". Unfortunately,
	I don't deal with metaphysical "little Godura"s.

>it manages to find its smelly way into almost every conceivable thread
>on SCI. Only it has little Dokiesque one-liners. 

	Shows how much attention you have been paying. The main thread
	I've been involved in is the "Science vs Religion". Most others
	have been general phattas which you might not like but others who
	write to me do.

>
>Piety, me ? I'll take that as a compliment :-) :-)

	I take it back :)

	FFT