Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
The point is, Ticker, you are not fit to be a judge, not by what you have demonstrated so far. You show no signs of having been through the academic rigour and painstaking learning of these subjects. And while judges are not always accepted as sound, their judgements are questioned by fresh facts, by additional facts, not by an obdurate and blind repetition of a point of view served up as facts.
I am unable to understand the rigmarole that you have served up by saying
What this means may be clear to you, it is not clear to me. First, I don't know which 15th century jurist served up judgements on the factual audacity of strategy of manoeuvre. It is not at all clear what a jurist should be doing judging strategy, leave alone jurists of the 15th century. What is this supposed to mean? Is this another concoction of your fevered imgination that you wish us to accept as factual? Much of what you have produced earlier is of that type, and much of what you have produced earlier was discounted for that precise reason, that it has no grounding in authority, and that if it was a challenge to authority, there is no element of fact, new or additional. Are we now seeing a re-run?
As for my knowing English and nothing more, that is sufficiently answered by pointing to what I have already presented, to you and to others. If that does not demonstrate that there is a genuine foundation of knowledge, then it is clear that you are putting together words in a smokescreen to hide your bankruptcy of ideas. if you have any stronger and more credible criticism than to assert that I know nothing and can merely write well, that, I believe, speaks for itself.
Speaking of English, are you sure you know the meaning of misappropriated?
You say that much of what I have presented represents mere decisions taken by others. That can only refer to one instance , the UN vote on the entitlement to the seat allotted to British India. There is no instance that I know of where that statement that you have made applies. As far as the UN decision is concerned, how am I responsible if I have the fact, the decision on my side, and you do not? Your quarrel lies with the UN, not with me. You write glibly of many having challenged the authority, the decisions and even the decision-making process. If it is not a secret in the vaults of the ISI, can you share some of this treasure trove with us? Or are we left to conclude that once again, your creativity has triumphed over your academic integrity?
Next, we have this passage accusing me of acting like God. You would do well to accept that there is an uncommon gap between your extremely ill-informed positions, on several subjects, and mine. My ability to demolish your airy-fairy nothings have nothing to do with the divine, they have to do merely with plain, humble knowledge and information. I cannot be blamed of trying to play God if you wish to impress your peers with some silly arguments and land up looking foolish. All I have done is presented the facts - over and over and over again.
You say, without compunction, that the facts presented were trash.
Why?
Do you have any authority that says so? Do you have contrary facts? Or is it just a humiliated loser speaking? Your logical answers and logical arguments are alarmingly close to a dieter's milk - almost fact-free.
If I do not agree with something, you will notice that I uniformly explain why, and present the facts of the matter. Always. That is not my viewpoint, I really do not wish to impose a pre-determined position on the forum or on you. What has been presented is always fatal. If that seems to be a viewpoint, you have a long way to go before you can entr debates in a public forum. The first step would be to distinguish between fact and belief. It seems sadly clear that the difference is unknown to you.
Why you call me bigoted is difficult to fathom. Nobody yet has made that particular accusation against me; it seems alarmingly as if you have a phrasebook of insults and are running through them one at a time. Nor is Expressionist laden drunkenness a very easy charge to understand, leave alone dismiss. What does it mean? I understand that my English is
considered an undesirable facility by you; if only you had not chosen to take the reverse posi..tion to distinguish your position from mine. A few, well-chosen facts might have done as much, if not more.
As for your misplaced gallantry, if you were to insist that you are a knave and a scoun
drel, and given to habitual lying to shore up your position, surely you cannot object if we were to take you at your word, in that entirely hypothetical situation, and refer to you as a scoundrel, a knave and a habitual liar.
If the lady in question wishes to be accorded the courtesy and deference which a lady might look for and expect, she must stop her campaign of vilification and making vicious unsupported assertions about Indians and Indian institutions. It cannot be one-sided. It is, of course, a charming coincidence that her position and yours is identical, insofar as neither of you depend on facts for your positions - only an excess of emotion.
