Now we've democratically elected a totalitarian government- Arunadhati Roy

[Indo-guy]

Cancer cells attack and kill the body from within, and that analogy would be appropriate for the seditious groups that Arundhati Roy sympathizes with. I'm not sure how a country can colonize itself, which means establishing colonies within itself, which doesn't seem to make sense. A nation's colony by definiton can only be set up away from home.

Cancers cells arise within ..they are not outsiders as you rightly pointed out .

The analogy applies to all those elements which resemble outwardly but have single agenda to hoard all resources to itself at cost of others.

The wealthy groups , corporates which wish to grow at cost of poor can also be likened to cancer .

The essence of economical growth model is whether " Poor is eliminated or poverty.... "

Yes a country is not uniform homogenous institution .

Like body contains many organs with dissimilar functions and yet they work in harmony with each other instead of fighting against each other , nation too is conglomerate of many colonies ...one may call them interest groups , lobbies , states or whatever based on what level that analogy is applied and in what sense ....

It is possible that anomaly arising within one of the colonies can overtake rest and colonize whole system ....

This is why Cancer is so difficult to fight ..because it arises within and resembles self ....

I think the point that Mrs Roy is making is valid .

Off course I do not agree with her in entirety .

But I do feel there is much depth in her reference to " country colonizing itself " ....


You may be correct in saying that Country can set colony outside and hence the statement doesn't make sense ..but then one can imagine that country itself is a group of colonies at peace with each other ..working together ...one of them turned rebellious can take over the rest and colonize whole system by eliminating others ...

 

[Dash]

She is a lost case. I hate these communists.

Yes in this country, these guys can survive, elsewhere they will be charged under sedition, and thrown out into a 2x2 cell

 

[nForce]

You were not, in that post, attacking her, however much you try to pretend otherwise. You made a direct attack on me. The trouble with attacking someone who can retaliate is that it is not half as much fun as saying things about someone who is not present, and is therefore an easy target.

Stupidity at its extreme.I don't think I will have to explain myself over and over again.Its because of educated fools like you that she goes spreading anti-national sentiments.

She may or may not be a terrorist sympathiser. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and to say it, under the same law that guarantees her her own right to free speech. No trouble with that. But that is not what we have in front of us.

Of course she is a terrorist sympathizer.Were you hit on your head some time soon ? Actively supporting the maosists, the militants in Kashmir..What kind of Cloud cuckoo land you live in ??

In plain words, you levelled an accusation against me. You have been unable to provide any grounds for it. And all you have to offer is garbled stuff about pinhole views. Whether you care or not, it is my pleasure to expose you and show you to be the poltroon and coward that you are.

No matter, how much I try to talk about Arundhati Roy, you try make it a me vs you..You may take pleasure in fighting petty duels like that, I don't.You just make me laugh at the insipidness.Arundhati Roy keeps on supporting anti national elements.Why are trying to protect her ? What is your take on the matter ? State in clear words instead of beating around the bush.

First, the thread is indeed about Arundhati Roy and her right to free speech. It is you who derailed it and started making personal accusations. If you know so much about how to stick to the subject, why did you deviate?

I didn't, you did.I have been urging you to stick to the topic, but now I am starting to realize that it is fruitless.

Second, the dense one is you, for assuming that supporting Arundhati Roy's human rights in any way denies the human rights of the victims of terror. Will not supporting her rights restore the rights of the victims? What is the connection? Are the terrorists doing what they are because of Arundhati Roy? Will they stop if she stops speaking in favour of their causes (their causes, not their actions)? What is it that you are trying to achieve? Retaliation?

I have already answered that in my last post.Refer to it.

Again, you display your ignorance in huge measure.

Repeatedly using the right of free speech in no way amounts to sedition. There are completely different yardsticks to determine sedition. There are courts of law and entire legal apparatuses to determine what is sedition. Sedition is not something that is taken up by every Tom, Dick or Harry who has heard of the word and of the law for the first time and wants to show off. There are people to take care of that, and considering that we are not discussing a politician, or a rich capitalist here, if there had been any substance to such a charge, of sedition, she would have been arraigned by now.

Someone who speaks her mind about a subject does not become seditious just because people like you don't like what she is saying.

It is not the use that I'm concerned about, it is the abuse of it.Why is the same person who sympathizes with the maosists is the same person who actively supports the separatists and terrorists in Kashmir ? Thats a direct question. Please try to answer that without making it a rhetorical you vs me yet again...

Patronizing myself? Why use phrases and expressions that you obviously don't understand?

I hope you understand it for your own good..

And what has seeing the big picture got to do with freedom of expression? Have you even read the Constitution? Do you find it telling you that some random jackass who thinks he is an authority on the big picture can overthrow its basics?

Anything.. repeat after me.. anything can be challenged..Who are you to make people think any different ?

As far as toning down separatist voices is concerned, if you think that physically suppressing them is going to serve any purpose, then you are a dunce. The British didn't succeed in suppressing Indian voices with their laws on sedition, and their restrictions on newspapers and on speeches, so what makes you think that you will suppress somebody with contrary thoughts to yours?

I believe I have already given my opinion about that in my last post.

Let us be thankful for small mercies. But let us also know if all this storm and fury is because you watch too many TV shows, and because you think that Arnab Goswami is the court.

Why should anyone answer in front of you? Do you know who set up these courts of we, the people.

The Maoists do.

I know, because I've been put in front of one.

How are you different from the Maoists?

Again..read my last post..
And yes.. I can only imagine how you escaped that inquisition.

I am from Bankura district. I have seen these guys very closely.I know what they are..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Your freedom ends where its starts and begins for the other. Constitutional rights are not due previledges to be abused, in this case,speech, will be judged in the basis of its implication on a person's thought. Just like my views mattered to you, you came balzing all your guns and told what not.

So a view point is so important that it may revoke emotions of the other and what has been said by Ms Roy affects the national concensus as sensitive. I am sure she can express her rights in her room, but not on national media giving interview to a pakistani news paper. Hence the outrage and if you call that absurd, then I advise please never make such "absurd" remarks.




Second, please be informed that you are not doing this nation a FAVOR, than doing your job so as I do. That doesnt demand any concession whatsoever. If you dont want to be judged on the basis of your expression on a forum like this, I advise you to stay at home. Nothing is personal here.

All I have to say to this stuff that you have written is that you would do well to get an English translator. Consider the following:

1. Your freedom ends where its starts and begins for the other.What does this mean? Either there are constitutional rights or there are not. Which is it? Could you answer?
   
2. Constitutional rights are not due previledges to be abused, Do you know the difference between a right and a privilege?
   
3. I am sure she can express her rights in her room, but not on national media giving interview to a pakistani news paper. Before you make comical statements like this, would you like to consult a lawyer? Ask the lawyer whether the right to free speech applies to the privacy of one's room or extends to all situations?
   
4. Hence the outrage and if you call that absurd, then I advise please never make such "absurd" remarks. You have just managed to say,"If you find me absurd, please don't be absurd". Are you even aware of what you are writing?
5. please be informed that you are not doing this nation a FAVOR, than doing your job so as I do.I am neither doing the nation a FAVOR, nor am I doing my job. It is neither my job nor yours to sit in judgement on another Indian citizen. Who appointed you Judge?
6. If you dont want to be judged on the basis of your expression on a forum like this, I advise you to stay at home. Really? Who will do the judging? You? Do you not see how stupid this statement is? You will sit in judgement on an Indian citizens actions on a Pakistani forum?

I realised that you had no coherent train of thought but were just venting your feelings, but this is beyond absurd.

 

[nForce]

she is looney....but she has a point.
modi has to be genocidal to usher a new india.
prepare for the chinese style forced migrations to facilitate multi billion $$ projects.
environment and human rights shall be crushed under the boots of high GDP growth.
.
.
.
.
just my two cents

Pray tell me what point she actually makes by siding with the maoists and actively separating the terrorists in Kashmir..Explain..

 

[Joe Shearer]

You were not, in that post, attacking her, however much you try to pretend otherwise. You made a direct attack on me. The trouble with attacking someone who can retaliate is that it is not half as much fun as saying things about someone who is not present, and is therefore an easy target.

Stupidity at its extreme.I don't think I will have to explain myself over and over again.Its because of educated fools like you that she goes spreading anti-national sentiments.

No, you don't have to explain yourself over and over again. In fact, you haven't done it even once. You can't. It's all out here, in public. Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You can write brave words; you can't conceal the total bankruptcy of your arguments.

She may or may not be a terrorist sympathiser. That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and to say it, under the same law that guarantees her her own right to free speech. No trouble with that. But that is not what we have in front of us.

Of course she is a terrorist sympathizer.Were you hit on your head some time soon ? Actively supporting the maosists, the militants in Kashmir..What kind of Cloud cuckoo land you live in ??

Most satisfactory.

I said that she may or may not be a terrorist sympathiser, because that is not what is under discussion. As I have written clearly above, that is your opinion; you are entitled to it. Repeating it adds nothing to the discussion. It just displays that you can't think your way out of a paper bag.

 

[nForce]

@joe.. finish editing soon..

 

[Joe Shearer]

In plain words, you levelled an accusation against me. You have been unable to provide any grounds for it. And all you have to offer is garbled stuff about pinhole views. Whether you care or not, it is my pleasure to expose you and show you to be the poltroon and coward that you are.

No matter, how much I try to talk about Arundhati Roy, you try make it a me vs you..You may take pleasure in fighting petty duels like that, I don't.You just make me laugh at the insipidness.Arundhati Roy keeps on supporting anti national elements.Why are trying to protect her ? What is your take on the matter ? State in clear words instead of beating around the bush.

Ah, but it was about Arundhati Roy until you made a personal attack on me. So either retract it or stay on record as a useless character who makes loose statements and then runs away.

Second, I am defending her right of free speech. Clear enough for you? Which part of that did you not understand? And what is it that you missed on previous posts, where I have said the same thing?

First, the thread is indeed about Arundhati Roy and her right to free speech. It is you who derailed it and started making personal accusations. If you know so much about how to stick to the subject, why did you deviate?

I didn't, you did.I have been urging you to stick to the topic, but now I am starting to realize that it is fruitless.

Did you, or did you not make a personal attack? Are you, or are you not avoiding discussing that?

Second, the dense one is you, for assuming that supporting Arundhati Roy's human rights in any way denies the human rights of the victims of terror. Will not supporting her rights restore the rights of the victims? What is the connection? Are the terrorists doing what they are because of Arundhati Roy? Will they stop if she stops speaking in favour of their causes (their causes, not their actions)? What is it that you are trying to achieve? Retaliation?

I have already answered that in my last post.Refer to it.

Which post? Quote it. Put it in front of us. Let us all see.

Again, you display your ignorance in huge measure.

Repeatedly using the right of free speech in no way amounts to sedition. There are completely different yardsticks to determine sedition. There are courts of law and entire legal apparatuses to determine what is sedition. Sedition is not something that is taken up by every Tom, Dick or Harry who has heard of the word and of the law for the first time and wants to show off. There are people to take care of that, and considering that we are not discussing a politician, or a rich capitalist here, if there had been any substance to such a charge, of sedition, she would have been arraigned by now.

Someone who speaks her mind about a subject does not become seditious just because people like you don't like what she is saying.

It is not the use that I'm concerned about, it is the abuse of it.Why is the same person who sympathizes with the maosists is the same person who actively supports the separatists and terrorists in Kashmir ? Thats a direct question. Please try to answer that without making it a rhetorical you vs me yet again...

How should I know? Ask her. Do I support her views? Have you read my numerous mails about supporting her or not supporting her? On this thread? Are those direct enough for you?

Patronizing myself? Why use phrases and expressions that you obviously don't understand?

I hope you understand it for your own good..

LOL.

Are you teaching me English? Or is it that you couldn't find anything smart to say?

 

[Dash]

All I have to say to this stuff that you have written is that you would do well to get an English translator. Consider the following:

1. Your freedom ends where its starts and begins for the other.What does this mean? Either there are constitutional rights or there are not. Which is it? Could you answer?
   
2. Constitutional rights are not due previledges to be abused, Do you know the difference between a right and a privilege?
   
3. I am sure she can express her rights in her room, but not on national media giving interview to a pakistani news paper. Before you make comical statements like this, would you like to consult a lawyer? Ask the lawyer whether the right to free speech applies to the privacy of one's room or extends to all situations?
   
4. Hence the outrage and if you call that absurd, then I advise please never make such "absurd" remarks. You have just managed to say,"If you find me absurd, please don't be absurd". Are you even aware of what you are writing?
5. please be informed that you are not doing this nation a FAVOR, than doing your job so as I do.I am neither doing the nation a FAVOR, nor am I doing my job. It is neither my job nor yours to sit in judgement on another Indian citizen. Who appointed you Judge?
6. If you dont want to be judged on the basis of your expression on a forum like this, I advise you to stay at home. Really? Who will do the judging? You? Do you not see how stupid this statement is? You will sit in judgement on an Indian citizens actions on a Pakistani forum?

I realised that you had no coherent train of thought but were just venting your feelings, but this is beyond absurd.

First of all you are funny!!!!!

1. Second, what I meant by rights of freedom, is that I can shout and dance in my own house unless my neighbour is disturbed, so there is a limitation to it. get it. your idiotic rights of freedom speech, dont mean anything. I can say whatever I want woithout influencuing someone in a negetive way.
2. Answer lies in the first comment.
3. It does, you wouldnt be so happy, when you go public, who is readinmg the same RAMAYAN for 5000 yrs, and say sita was a male. you are sure to be beaten up!! India as a country is a majority of Indians, not unlike you, who wake up to the dreams of secularism/samanta, let me tell you my practicality doesnt allow me to observe that principle, you should visit different states.
4. you failed to get my sarcasm, dont blame you, you are slowing down.
5. I get to excercize it once in every 4-5 years and the same constitution has given me that. but for people like you I will excercize it daily and you cant do jack $hit about it. Its a dog eat dog world, live with it.
6. Stop me if anybody can.

 

[Joe Shearer]

And what has seeing the big picture got to do with freedom of expression? Have you even read the Constitution? Do you find it telling you that some random jackass who thinks he is an authority on the big picture can overthrow its basics?

Anything.. repeat after me.. anything can be challenged..Who are you to make people think any different ?

ROTFL. The Constitution cannot be challenged. You can say that you don't like it; that is called exercising your right of free speech. It may give a judge high blood pressure, just Arundhati Roy gives you high blood pressure, but he has to bear it, just like you have to bear it.

While you can comment about it, freely, you can neither arraign another citizen except under its provisions, nor can you accuse people of various crimes without the authority to do so.

If your idea of challenging is to hide behind an anonymous id on a Pakistani forum and make brave statements that you don't have to live up to, you're doing fine. If your idea is something else, get out of this and file a public interest litigation. Otherwise go to the police and file a complaint against the seditious person.

As far as toning down separatist voices is concerned, if you think that physically suppressing them is going to serve any purpose, then you are a dunce. The British didn't succeed in suppressing Indian voices with their laws on sedition, and their restrictions on newspapers and on speeches, so what makes you think that you will suppress somebody with contrary thoughts to yours?

I believe I have already given my opinion about that in my last post.

Quote it.

Let us be thankful for small mercies. But let us also know if all this storm and fury is because you watch too many TV shows, and because you think that Arnab Goswami is the court.

Why should anyone answer in front of you? Do you know who set up these courts of we, the people.

The Maoists do.

I know, because I've been put in front of one.

How are you different from the Maoists?

Again..read my last post..
And yes.. I can only imagine how you escaped that inquisition.

I am from Bankura district. I have seen these guys very closely.I know what they are..

Ah, that famous last post. It is indeed likely to be your last post.

No wonder you automatically think like a Maoist. No wonder you have no idea of what a court of law is. Much is clear from this statement of yours.

 

[nForce]

No, you don't have to explain yourself over and over again. In fact, you haven't done it even once. You can't. It's all out here, in public. Anyone can read it and judge for themselves. You can write brave words; you can't conceal the total bankruptcy of your arguments.

Yes its out here..Refer to my previous posts..No matter how much your try to pose as just, you are just trying to safe guard a person who stands for everything that the people of India have worked for.You are trying to protect an anti-national, thats what you are doing.

Most satisfactory.

Answer a direct question.

I said that she may or may not be a terrorist sympathiser, because that is not what is under discussion. As I have written clearly above, that is your opinion; you are entitled to it. Repeating it adds nothing to the discussion. It just displays that you can't think your way out of a paper bag.

That is what I am discussing.She is a terrorist sympathizer and thereby a terrorist.That is the point.

 

[jha]

Someone, marry her . .. . . . .plz !!

its not an easy thing to live alone . . .

tu hi kar le na....

 

[nForce]

Ah, but it was about Arundhati Roy until you made a personal attack on me. So either retract it or stay on record as a useless character who makes loose statements and then runs away.

Yeah yeah.. I have been talking about Arundhati Roy all the time. Stop being a cry baby for a change, will you?

Second, I am defending her right of free speech. Clear enough for you? Which part of that did you not understand? And what is it that you missed on previous posts, where I have said the same thing?

Everybody has his or her right to free speech.I have said it before in my previous posts that I was wrong to advocate mob justice.Rather, my opinion is that her activities should be challenged in the court of law.But as I can clearly see, you, are a total nut case.Your pride, your ego is what your problem is.And I am quite sure, I am not the only person who can see that...For the past many posts, I have been telling you not to get personal, but you just seem to leave no stone unturned in doing that.I feel sorry for you.There is no practical difference between you and the rednecks that we are habituated to see in this forum..

Did you, or did you not make a personal attack? Are you, or are you not avoiding discussing that?

Refer to my previous quote

Which post? Quote it. Put it in front of us. Let us all see.

Are you having an election here ?Huh... Refer my previous posts..

How should I know? Ask her. Do I support her views? Have you read my numerous mails about supporting her or not supporting her? On this thread? Are those direct enough for you?

Write it down in clear words..Dont understand what a direct question is ??

 

[Joe Shearer]

First of all you are funny!!!!!

1. Second, what I meant by rights of freedom, is that I can shout and dance in my own house unless my neighbour is disturbed, so there is a limitation to it. get it. your idiotic rights of freedom speech, dont mean anything. I can say whatever I want woithout influencuing someone in a negetive way.

Oh really? Tell me which right of yours Arundhati Roy's right of free speech has violated? Or which right of somebody else?

2. Answer lies in the first comment.

Your first comment was some stuff about shouting and dancing in your own house. How does it answer the question of a difference between a privilege and a right? There is nothing mentioned in your first comment.

3. It does, you wouldnt be so happy, when you go public, who is readinmg the same RAMAYAN for 5000 yrs, and say sita was a male. you are sure to be beaten up!! India as a country is a majority of Indians, not unlike you, who wake up to the dreams of secularism/samanta, let me tell you my practicality doesnt allow me to observe that principle, you should visit different states.

You originally wrote:

I am sure she can express her rights in her room, but not on national media giving interview to a pakistani news paper.

And I asked:

Before you make comical statements like this, would you like to consult a lawyer? Ask the lawyer whether the right to free speech applies to the privacy of one's room or extends to all situations?

Tell me, does your post in answer, the stuff above, have any logical answer to the question I asked? What does it mean? Are you trying to say that unpopular things will meet a violent response, and therefore we should not say them? Isn't that taking away someone's right to free speech by threatening violence?

You want me to visit different states. Before I answer, could I ask: which states have you, yourself, worked in?


4. you failed to get my sarcasm, dont blame you, you are slowing down.

You write garbled English, which is totally without any meaning, and that is sarcasm? Not bad grammar?

5. I get to excercize it once in every 4-5 years and the same constitution has given me that. but for people like you I will excercize it daily and you cant do jack $hit about it. Its a dog eat dog world, live with it.

Oh, I see. So you think that expressing an opinion on PakDef is equivalent to voting? Am I correct?

6. Stop me if anybody can.

LOL.

Nobody wants to stop you. Just point out your silliness.

That's fun.

 

[nForce]

ROTFL. The Constitution cannot be challenged. You can say that you don't like it; that is called exercising your right of free speech. It may give a judge high blood pressure, just Arundhati Roy gives you high blood pressure, but he has to bear it, just like you have to bear it.

While you can comment about it, freely, you can neither arraign another citizen except under its provisions, nor can you accuse people of various crimes without the authority to do so.

DafaQ! Amendments ? As a matter of fact I dont think any amendment is necessary to challenge and try Arundhati Roy for sedition.

If your idea of challenging is to hide behind an anonymous id on a Pakistani forum and make brave statements that you don't have to live up to, you're doing fine. If your idea is something else, get out of this and file a public interest litigation. Otherwise go to the police and file a complaint against the seditious person.

I will do what is necessary.You try to be a roman while in Rome.Kapish ?

Quote it.

As is said, read my post.

Ah, that famous last post. It is indeed likely to be your last post.

Are you sure ? You are hitting the wrong chords all along.

No wonder you automatically think like a Maoist. No wonder you have no idea of what a court of law is. Much is clear from this statement of yours.

Prove it!! I will make you eat your words...