Cyrus wrote: While your unhealthy fixation with me and Ms. Majid is amusing, if not flattering, this is going to be my last posting with the subject line. My Response: Seems like Mr. Cyrus is being so fixated on his own views that he would do anything to conceal his own dirty linens. When I find writer like him, echoing an apparently erroneous, narrow, illogical thought and his shallow narratives mixed with abysmal prejudices and his venomous and reactionary vendetta against his political opponents who are none but our own people. Cyrus wrote: I am open to discussing any subject matter with you without making it personal, about you and I. My Response: Asking for clarifications of what makes Moududi and Moududi wanna-be are not the subjects relate to personal matters between you and me? Cyrus wrote: There is a fundamental difference between "loyal opposition" and "juvenile adamancy", and I am finding it increasingly difficult to put your postings in either category. My Response: What has to do with being "loyal opposition" or "juvenile adamancy" or why do you need to categories either of them? Have I expressed any views without providing adequate explanations? I don't limit my choices and guide my decisions based upon ideology or rhetoric to blur or to misguide the audiences without facts. I don't do politics as I don't have such undeveloped political convictions, nor do I have warped ideologies to guide my principle. The hired myth-makers and hack apologists like Ms. Farida and Mr. Cyrus are influenced by their own rhetoric of justification and the ideological consolidation that prevails. And facts are their enemies. Cyrus wrote: I am starting to think that you are simply being antagonistic because you either enjoy it, or trying to change the topic from Mr. Munshi aka Isha Khan's obsession with India and Pakistan. My Response: As I have explicitly expressed my views on India and Pakistan, so Mr. Munshi or Mr. Isha Khan have no roles to play on me nor on my views that i hold it very sacred. I have to tell you something that perhaps you don't read every word very carefully that I have written. Something is dangerously wrong on your part not realizing as to what I have said, has no place of being antagonistic of your views. All I was interested to know the clarification of those three questions I have asked of you in my previous post which you intentionally evaded it. It is very much OK with me that you can't coherently answer all those questions. Admitting this simple truth would have saved both of our efforts and valuable time that we spent on this silly issue. Cyrus wrote: Your antagonism reminds me of that classic exchange: "What are you rebelling against, Johnny?" and Johnny (Marlon Brando) replies, "Whaddya got? My Response: Johnny is rebelling against those who molds the public opinion without facts and who molds the public? for assuredly the hand that molds the wild one [i.e., Mr. Cyrus and Ms. Farida] molds the world! Cyrus wrote: Almost everything you had said so far is a diversion technique to move the focus away from Mr. Munshi's postings. My Response: I was "ONLY" commenting on Ms. Farida's personal attacks on Mr. Munshi, using a deplorable epithet and Mr. Cyrus' rat epithet to describe his political opponent as I was responding to Mr. Shoab's attacks on the people of Islamic faith as Islamist which has derogatory connotation in my view, did not stir away from the neither of their respective areas nor did I intend to take the focus away from their postings. Mr. shoab's Islamist, Mr. Cyrus' rat and Ms. Farida's hound are the epithets that i was focusing on. No diversion technique was applied by me. I feel you but only i can do is, shrug my shoulder! Cyrus wrote: It's a bit hypocritical to decry "red-herring fallacies" and use the same to change the topic. My Response: Doubling down on fallacy of red-herring is not only hypocritical but also indicates that you are intentionally misrepresenting my views. Cyrus wrote: The day you callously decided to put my name and Ms. Majid's name in the subject line, the topic changed from Bangladesh's economy, politics and our prosperity to you and you alone. My Response: As I do not consider myself the arbiter as to decide who should discus what subject lines or topics whether be it economy or politics. Any one can debate or discuss whatever topics he/she chooses. Cyrus wrote: Observing your rather vulgar and uncalled for outbursts where you swear at my mother and question the legitimacy of my birth, My Response: All I have reciprocated your cant or vulgar or street slang remarks bend over backwards back to you and delineated a grim picture of what bend-over-backwards actually means. The way you gave meaning to "bent over backwards" only FOB will agree with your kind of definition. I do apologize for hurting your and others sentiments by being reciprocated-vulgar but I m NOT sorry for being reciprocated the term that you used perhaps to show that you know such terms exist and such unkind terms do hurt both ways alike! From now on, a psychical evolution is to be expected as we must be on the threshold of a new mindset would lead us to a new era instead of being vulgar. Cyrus wrote: You were offended by Ms. Majid's use of the word "hound"? I hope you know that "hound(ing)" is also a verb (check the Webster). My response: Whatever Webster dictionary has to say about the word "hound" or "hounding" or whether or not I m offended by those terms used by Farida has no relevance but If a hound starts hounding without eminent danger then we must take the hound to a veterinary hospital to figure out whether the hound should be hounding. Now as you have admitted that neither of you have read Mr. Munshi's "Indian doctrine", I wonder, then, why the hound-for-sheep-destroying-wolf is hounding for? Do you see now where do I stand on the issue that is so erroneous on your part to coalesced into one unit to fight the invaders and whoever that invaders might be? To administer the proper antidotes, it is important to expose the errors at first and if we try to conceal the errors, no adequate correctives can be applied. Hope I didn't hurt any of you by my hound-for-sheep-destroying-wolf analogy. Cyrus wrote: Those who are easily outraged by triviality are often silent towards anything consequential. My Response: The above statement does equally apply to you and as I m mindful of the consequences are known to be always bad. I was taught and raised to be defensive, to reason with people, to think before act or say something consequential so that brotherhood of mankind and peace can prevail. My moto is: I would not preemptive attack any human being unless I m provoked. That's why it is very good practices to seize upon the TRUTH where ever it may be found, among your friends or foes alike. And those who believe that the causes of consequences can be best subserved by a suppression of truths are living in a fools paradise. Cyrus wrote: I have never called myself an "intellectual" or "Pundit" in any sense. When you say that I am a "self-declared" pundit, you are essentially proving yourself to be a liar. My Response: If he thinks by calling him a "pundit" I have dispraised him then to understand him, an attempt must be made to discover the true sense of putrescence. With due respect, the word "pundit", "guru", "expert" and "professional" are not an epithet; These are honorable name, with significance for every period of human history. He that has eyes to see, let him see. The others will not, because they cannot. There are many genuine "expert" or "guru" or "pundit" mixed up in our common population, but I have not offered these words to them! whether vice held triumphant sway or servility corrupted with awful success in a Cyrusian world is remains to be seen! Cyrus wrote: Unfortunately, you don't understand the difference between science and your inconsequential questions about Moududi, My Response: All I had wanted him to delineate a picture of what makes him to call someones philosophy to be perverted and without providing any sort of proof and still like an idle babbler brags about the difference between science and his consequential labeling us as Moududi wanna-be. NO wonder why many men like Cyrus in a primitive stage of mental development, are incapable of science. BTW what is the meaning of Science and what is meaning of the word Science to him? whether i call him an idle-drunken-babbler or pundit are equally putrid fantasy for him. Cyrus wrote: If you want to talk about science, let's keep that separate from our disagreements over Moududi. My Response: The subject of Science was initiated by him as a tactics to divert us away from the main issue which is known as fallacy of delay. By delaying the answer of what was expected of him, he thinks that he will be able to evade us away from the focus of his dilemma that he himself put into. I can't say definitely whether we have agreements or disagreements over moududi issue yet because I don't know anything about Moududi's philosophy in relation to what make us Moududi wanna-be. Science? why does he not use science as a method of verification process in order to over come his dilemma instead of introducing another delay tactics and his way of finding a logical linkage between spaghetti, the weather and life after death? Cyrus wrote: Hate to break your maniacal bubble, but this ain't no Greek forum, nor are we discussing philosophy here. My Response: This slangy dabbler Cyrus who dips slightly into anything and takes off his sleeves, spits on his hands and goes to attack his opponent. As you may recall this idle drunken babbler wrote in his previous post where he said perverted philosophy of Moududi and now he goes on to say "are we discussing philosophy here?" are contradictory propositions on his part and still to suggest "this ain't no Greek forum" is something strange weird, cultish contradictory but its hard to figure out exactly what is he up to? He is wrong in his sensual desires, a liar, a slanderer, and an idle-drunken-babbler. Is there a scent that goes upwards, against the wind and both ways alike? Anyway What the devil can he find to say about philosophy? Cyrus wrote: If you disagree with my comments about Mr. Munshi and his analysis, which you are absolutely entitled to, please tell us in what context do you disagree. Which part of my comments about his India/Pak obsession do you disagree with? My Response: As I have said before that I have not read Mr. Munshi's "Indian doctrine" nor do I know him personally, so I have no way of knowing as to what analysis you want me to agree or disagree with? Let me once again remind you that All I have said don't treat your political or intellectual opponents like pests. And wanted to know what makes Moududi a Moududi and what relation my views are identical with Moududi that's make me moududi wanna-be. But alas you have not ever tried to address this issues. Go and read my posts once again, please. Will ya? |
__._,_.___