Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 04:33:12 -0400 From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It is bad enough that the loonies are displaying their hate. > Now, they are busy trying to add fuel to the fire by determining what other people BELIEVE. > The clear fact is that Rajan in his post did NOT state that Selma BELIEVED, but he wrote that Selma CLAIMED. > THAT, I submit is a LIE. > There are many things one can believe that Rajan Believes. > That is no reason to state that Rajan CLAIMS or CLAIMED. > Mario observes: > Firstly, thanks to the Goanet moderators to allow this loose personal abuse to continue so we can understand these characters better:-)) > This attempt to go where angels fear to tread, between Rajan, Selma and Dr. Jose, is to try and clarify the competing claims and beliefs and the escalation to charges of LYING, when what everone said and in what context is all there in the archives for all Goanetters of goodwill to see. > My intention is not to intervene or take sides in this highly cerebral discussion about what one person CLAIMED someone else said versus saying that they BELIEVED what the other person had said, a discussion that has reached such heights of intellectual irrelevance that serious charges of SPINNING, nay, LYING, are now flying around like shrapnel after a bomb blast. I will call it as I see it. If I'm wrong I KNOW that one or other of the three participants, ...er, combatants, will correct me:-)) > So, like in boxing, everone to their corners and breathe deeply and sip some water. > As one of Goanet's few reliable and mature voices of reason here is how I see it:-)) Fasten your seatbelts:-)) > After Benazir Bhutto was assassinated, here is what Rajan opined, comments I thought were pretty harsh, but, hey, it's his opinion and he is entitled to it: > http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2007-December/067140.html > Within a few hours, and I'm guessing written independantly, were these dark and dire thoughts from Selma. When I first read them I shook my head and thought that surely she was having a bad day because her baby had pooped all over the sofa. I cannot relate to these remarks and I have no knowledge of training sessions in Goa where Hindus are being trained to either HATE or ELIMINATE Christians. I'd be very disappointed if there were: > http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2007-December/067176.html > Rajan calls these comments falsehoods. Whether they are or not depends on whether Selma can back up her claim that, "There is a whole generation of young Goan Hindus being systematically trained to hate Christians. Their cadres are organised and they are armed." > Now enters the irrepressible Dr. Jose into the discussion, questioning whether Rajan is telling a LIE when he CLAIMS that Selma was expressing her BELIEF that Goan Christians are under threat of being ELIMINATED. Dr. Jose says that all Selma said was that young Hindus were being trained to HATE Christians, not ELIMINATE them. I'm not sure from all the strum and drang whether Dr. Jose thinks that Selma writes what she does not BELIEVE. > My analysis suggests that when Dr. Jose used as his reference the sentence in Selma's post, "There is a whole generation of young Goan Hindus being systematically trained to HATE Christians." he somehow overlooked her opening sentence, which was, "A similar fate awaits Goan Catholics in Goa, I am sure of it!" and that the immediate context of her remarks was the ASSASSINATION of Ms. Bhutto. > ASSASSINATION means ELIMINATION, the last time I checked. > When someone ends a conclusion with, "...I'm sure of it" it sure sounds to me like they BELIEVE what they have just written. > So, there we have it: > 1. Rajan thinks Benazir Bhutto was scum. > 2. Selma, right after Bhutto was assassinated wrote that Christians in Goa are under threat of Bhutto's fate, from Hindus being trained acccordingly. > 3. Dr. Jose thinks Rajan is LYING when he differentiates between HATING and ELIMINATING, CLAIMING and BELIEVING. > 4. Why can't we all get along? Why did Bhutto's assassination in chaotic Pakistan lead directly to such a corrosive and contentious discussion on Goanet? > The way I see it is that the only way that Rajan is LYING, on this issue, is if his CLAIM that Selma's BELIEF of Hindus being trained to eliminate Christians, is a falsehood, i.e. there is no such organized Hindu conspiracy and training. On the other hand, if Selma has the evidence to back up her claim that there is such a conspiracy and training as she said she was sure of, then Rajan's credibility is in trouble in my book. > I'm not ready to call anyone a LIAR before I see the evidence. > Where I live, everyone is INNOCENT until proven GUILTY not by CLAIMS or BELIEFS, but with EVIDENCE against them. >
