--- On Fri, 3/27/09, Frederick "FN" Noronha <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think it would be beneficial if Santosh told us exactly
> what is wrong in the arguments, instead of taking pot shots at
> Vijay Prashad's ideology.
>
I have already told you what is wrong with what Vijay Prashad has written. He
slandered a poor father and brother of a young woman who was murdered by
Marxist politicians. He falsely claimed that these innocent family members were
responsible for her murder in order to cover up the fact that his fellow
communists were the real culprits.
Frederick appears to be in denial of the egregious offense that Vijay Prashad
has committed, despite the fact that I have provided documentary evidence to
support it. Please note his obfuscation below:
"Even assuming Prashad was totally wrong in identifying the accused in some
West Bengal case, can and should this be used against his arguments here?"
......Frederick Frederick
Why does Frederick have to assume that Prashad was totally wrong? Isn't it
obvious that he was? Do facts mean anything to Frederick?
As far as Prashad being a Marxist, I couldn't care less. I have no interest in
arguing against Marxism or communism. All I care is to expose the fact that
this man slanders and lies about other people, including people like Mother
Teresa, in the service of his petty politics and parochial ideology. I believe
I have provided ample documentary evidence to back this statement of mine.
>
> The manner in which people's arguments are distorted, and
> then they are slapped with it, is certainly unfair.
>
Nobody is as good as Frederick at doing the above, and using weasel words or
whatever else he is accusing me and others of doing. Here is a classic example
of this behavior in an article he wrote in Herald recently:
"It's perhaps understandable if believers let slip their bias; but for people
claiming neutrality from religion to cynically manipulate it is all too
inexcusable."
....Frederick Noronha
I have repeatedly asked Frederick to clarify who and whose religion he was
referring to when he made this accusation in his Herald article, and
what facts he was relying on to impugn their motives.
To date he has shirked his ethical responsibility to do so. Indeed, he has
claimed that he does not believe his opinions have to be supported by evidence.
In other words, he believes he is free to abuse his journalistic privileges to
accuse anybody he wants based on his own whims and prejudices.
Cheers,
Santosh
