--- On Sat, 9/20/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >But as one who has been posting on various matters with a somewhat sense >of >balance and objectivity, your response to the carnage in Orissa was >baffling >and a big letdown. If you read your own posts again with a clear >mind, you >may perhaps realise this. >
I will let someone else judge whether my posts on this matter have been objective or not from the Christian, Hindu and secular perspectives. Let them decide whether the use of the word "pogrom" more aptly speaks to one's objectivity rather than the term "communal riots", which I have used. But from all I have seen, it is unlikely that Marshall Mendonza is objective about anything he has posted on this matter. An objective person does not erect various kinds of self-serving strawmen just to accuse someone repeatedly of having a macabre sense of humor, or of being unsympathetic to victims of violence, while pretending to grant them the freedom to hold an opinion. It is also unlikely that Marshall has been able to grasp the fact that articles from any source, mainstream or partisan, can be selectively used for one-sided propaganda, as he has done. I have already given two examples of this in my last post. Here is another one that he appears to have posted from a partisan source: http://www.goanet.org/post.php?name=News&list=goanet&info=2008-September/date&post_id=080448 Please note the following link for a possible source for this article: http://www.persecution.org/suffering/newsdetail.php?newscode=8518 Regarding Marshall's being an activist/political operative, I am not able to decide whether he is a militant activist or a political operative. But I have already provided the following evidence for my suspicion: 1. He has posted articles from unilateral partisan sources (Please see above and my previous post). 2. He has selectively posted articles from the mainstream press either to bolster a preconceived narrative or to advertise the activity of a political party (please see my previous post). 3. He has shown undue aggression in trying to accuse me of not having any empathy for the victims of violence for the mere fact that I have voiced an opinion, different from his, with the intent of dousing the flames of communal discord. Regarding the meaning of the word "militant", here is the first thing that the dictionary says about it: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militant "militant - 1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers." Please note that violence is not mentioned anywhere in this definition. Cheers, Santosh > > If Santosh feels that articles in the meanstream press like > Times of India, NDTV, PTI and eyewitness accounts are > propaganda, he is free to believe the same.He can continue > to live in denial.Others on Goanet know the difference.And > to club press reports from the mainstream media with stuff > from RSS publications again shows a macabre sense of > humour.One can wake up a person who is sleeping but one > cannot wake up a person who is pretending to sleep. >..................................... > Santosh has called me a political operative without any > proof or evidence.Neither am I fighting with anyone on > Goanet.If posting articles from the mainstream media or > putting forth one's point of view is considered as > fighting, Santosh is free to believe so. So much for his > scientific temper.I am now convinced that whether highly > educated or not, all human beings have the same failings. >....................... > I quote from Santosh' previous post 'The militant > activists and political operatives we see on Goanet will > keep on fighting and blaming each other' > Please refer to the meaning of 'militant'. No one > is putting words in your mouth. It is flowing from there. >
