to Satish

[Guest guest]

93

> If I remember right, your scientific(as u claim) articles that

> were rejected by Ambaa-l group contained abbreviations like LOL ,

> LMAO etc. Not to mention that they are irrelevant to Ambaa-l's

> audience, in the first place.

> Is that how one writes schlolarly articles?

> One doesnt call such incoherent writing filled up with such silly

> junk as scientific or schlolarly. They looked as though you were

> whining like a cry-baby about something rather than present

> something.

 

i was not presenting a PhD thesis :-). by scientific i meant that kind

of approach, isn't that clear to u? i didn't say my postings were

academician style. internet is something different from uni.

this "reason" is not convincing as well as other that u try to invent

again and again. i'm not the only one using these abbreviations (LOL

and stuff); however it has never become as far as i know a reason to

delete anyone's messages.

btw this new reason was not given to me that time. it again proves

that it is unfounded. it was so easy to tell me not to use such "silly

junk"... and i would have humbly removed these expressions from my

posts :-).

 

just relax :-). u won't find any suitable and convincing explanation

for an obvious reason - u do not wan't to say the truth. i understand

ur position... no problem :-). actually i forgot that u are one of

moderators of ambaa_l, so i've given that example. i have no interest

to discuss this matter anymore, it is useless. u do not want to see me

there - u are welcome. i do not post in ur list anymore. the matter is

closed i hope :-).

 

A.

[Guest guest]

, "Arjuna Taradasa"

<bhagatirtha@m...> wrote:

> i was not presenting a PhD thesis :-). by scientific i meant that

kind

> of approach, isn't that clear to u? i didn't say my postings were

> academician style. internet is something different from uni.

> this "reason" is not convincing as well as other that u try to

invent

> again and again. i'm not the only one using these abbreviations

(LOL

> and stuff); however it has never become as far as i know a reason

to

> delete anyone's messages.

> btw this new reason was not given to me that time. it again proves

> that it is unfounded. it was so easy to tell me not to use

such "silly

> junk"... and i would have humbly removed these expressions from my

> posts :-).

>

> just relax :-). u won't find any suitable and convincing

explanation

> for an obvious reason - u do not wan't to say the truth. i

understand

> ur position... no problem :-).

 

 

 

So what is the truth that I am not willing to say?

 

What did you understand about me and what do u know about me?

 

How do u know about me from 4 or 5 email exchanges? Or are you a

pshycologist or some professionally trained pshyco-analyst(process

of pshyco analysis - i heard, is debunked) to know about me?

 

Since you happened to mention that you dont want to continue

discussing this moderation issue here, you may consider personally

emailing me.

 

As for me, I dont have a problem discussing this moderation issue

here.

 

See the following: It is a part of your post in Ambaa-l. You think

it is ok for kids to learn this??

I mentioned b4 that part of the reason(refer previous posts) is we

dont want underaged ones to read vamachara material. I gave this

reason b4 on this issue, apart from mentioning that dakshinachara is

the focus of the group. My mention of your articles being un-

scientific is for the posts with which you followed up on this

thread.

 

-------------------

pUjane navadhA bhaktirasollAsashcha jAyate

Ali~Ngana~nchumbana~ncha stanayormardanaM tathA

14. The Rejoicing of Love is born in this worship, [it consists of]

the nine [tinges].

Embraces, kisses, caressing of breasts,

 

darshanaM sparshanaM yonervikAraM li~NgagharShaNam

praveshassthApanaM shakternavapuShpANi pUjane

15. contemplation, touch, pulsation of Yoni, friction of Lingam,

entering and consolidation in Shakti - this is the nine flowers in

worship.

 

yonichumbanakaM karma shakterAli~NganaM tathA

na karoti naro yastu sa kathaM tavapUjakaH

16. He who doesn't embrace woman and doesn't kiss her Yoni - can he

serve you at all?

 

vAmAchAro bhaktihIno vR^ithA devi na saMshayaH

evaM yasya dR^iDhA bhaktissa vAme siddhimApnuyAt

17. It's certain, o Goddess, that vamacara practice is futile

without

Love.

The perfection in the Way of Vama can be attained only by intense

bhakti (devotional feeling).

--------------------------

 

I have deleted my own posts when inadvertantly I posted something

which is not inline with Ambaa-l's policy sometime back.

 

SA.