From: paulchem@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Atharvan)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: soc.islam, More flames -- Icarus.
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:20:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Sep27.135817.28204
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <92271.052605U11983@uicvm.uic.edu> Shyamala Parameswaran <U11983@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:
>This is my last post on the subject.
>
>In this thread, I believe the swipes added nothing. Saying 'you
>have yours, I have mine' etc. as reason for swiping, is really
>meaningless. 

1] Because you say so ?
   How about something more substantial ?
   Is it any more meaningless than the reason for ad hominem attacks ?

>All I said was that the exchange could have used
>a straight talk. From your side, as initiator. Pulling in on-line
>definitions, a throwing in 'We'll let that pass for now' type of
>line does nothing for me. 

2] It was not meant to do anything *for* you.
In fact it behaved according to plan.

Get your words straight before you say something because otherwise
your message becomes less than comprehensible. We have to have a 
approximate agreement on what the words you use mean, for any 
sensible debate. You may disagree.

>>2] As I see it, there is no such thing as a limited ad hominem attack.
>>   If a poster initiates such an attack, he or she forgoes all his or her
>>   claims of being innocently ambushed when said he or she gets responses
>>   in the same vein. I am perfectly capable of responding in the manner
>>   I did eventually, so in my opinion this particular he or she was asking
>>   for it. In short, I will respond in kind.
>>
>
>Yes, one can do that. But one hoped you would be able to go
>beyond the like-begets-like type of talk.

3] I am again crestfallen to disappoint you.
Someday someone. One can only hope of course.

>It is interesting to note how you view exchange on this forum.
>
>You make a sensitive post and then when responses come in, view
>them in the light of weapons used, attacks, etc. 

4] Gadzooks, found out at last !! 
Just when I thought I was going to get away with it.

Some people have a sixth sense when it comes to naughty behaviour
it seems. They arrive at the scene of the crime with the alacrity
of the legendary schoolmistresses of old.
Is there no hope for criminals such as me on SCI ? :-)


>IMO, Nagarajan was
>perhaps provocative but there seemed nothing I saw as 'weapons.'
>IMO, again, I think it was the "The truth according to Paul..."
>was what, perhaps, struck. 
>A little too close to home? Readers
>can decide. 

5] IMO, you kind lady are perhaps being vacuous but there seemed 
nothing I see as sensible.
IMO, again, I think it is high time you take a break from your 
current occupation as net moderator, at which you have been performing
rather miserably.
A little too close to home? Readers can decide.

[
On a related note, I have nothing against an image of me as 
exegesist. I have always admired the co-architect of christianity and
my namesake: The Lion Of God, St.Paul. Wonderful eloquence, lucidity,
intelligence, fervour and wisdom. I would be honoured. 

If you thought I was upset by this line it betrays how little you 
understand me which is no surprise considering you have nothing but posts
to go on. As I mentioned in response to nagarajan, I have always 
welcomed charges of being in possession of original insights. :-)
]

>Seems like there was a hidden agenda in your response,
>which was way out. 

6] A hidden agenda is better than no agenda, I always say.
(Of course I can only guess at the meaning of this sentence
of yours, since you have the clarity of expression of
an image of a cloud on a rainy day reflected on the
surface of a muddy pool.) If you cant understand what I 
mean by that you may be more sympathetic towards the plight 
of the readers who try to understand what you are saying.

>In the case of Shakil, the asides were
>condescending, had nothing to do with logic (or lack of).
>

7] Kind lady, please to avoid statements that convince me of your 
woeful lack of comprehension. Even shakil was better off than you
in his responses and his understanding.

>>
>>4] I admit I ride a high horse, but I like to believe it suits me.
>
>Yes, self images are important. I guess even the high-horse ones.

8] Your one-liners are pathetic (Not to mention incomprehensible.)
Try these for size: 

You could make a living as a dumb terminal. All you need to do is to
grab a live wire.:-)

But the one I like best: You kind lady wouldnt recognize a sense of humour 
if it knocked you over in the street.

9] Now after all that fun, let me add a few lines in a more serious vein.
Perhaps I allowed nagarajan to provoke me, perhaps he got carried away
in his initial response, perhaps my final response to him was over the 
top. But all is fair in flame-war. I hope nagarajan will not take it
personally. I do believe that he does not need regents to speak for
him. I thought he was doing quite well in the arguments that we had,
keeping up with me in terms of scoring points. So I wish you allowed
him to speak for himself.

After the dust settles I hope all the net personalities involved
will remain on reasonably cordial terms.
I might add that some of my best net friends are ex-flame opponents.

As for you shyamala, its been my ambition perhaps to have a full scale
flame war with you. After all its like meeting a net-childhood idol.
So dont take it personally either. 

Well, this is probably sayonara from Boulder this time around.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.   Rain makes me remember,                                                .
.   The sunset of that golden hour,                                        .
.   When my eyes were first opened,                     Paul Chemmanoor    .
.   And I saw your eyes, No longer blind.                   Boulder.       .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian