Official Ramakanta vs. IRM discussion thread

[Guest guest]

Posted by Yaduraja on Mar 04, 2006:

 

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO, AGTSP,

Added to the previous self-contradiction is the following:

 

You had written with regards point a):

 

> No, it is incorrect. It is speculation based on observation. Especially

> the word "sole" is speculation.

Ramakanta (Nov 04, 2005 - 11:32 AM)

 

But now you accept the word 'sole' as bona fide:

 

> ...he was the *sole* diksa guru". (I still agree with that.),

(Ramakanta das 2006 - 07:06 AM)

 

This is another contradiction.

 

You also stated the following:

 

> I do not agree with your point a). I never did.

(Ramakanta Feb 09, 2006 - 11:56 AM)

 

So far as our debate on this forum is concerned this is not correct. You did

agree with point a) several times, but then later claimed it was due to a

misunderstanding. So you cannot say ‘I never did’ since you did (I can post

you doing this if you do not recall), but then changed position when you

claim you understood properly what the words meant in English. Better to say

‘I never meant to agree with point a’ or something similar. We need to keep

things clear as your position fluctuates constantly.

 

If you do not dispute the above I shall move to the next point which will

include reference your latest newest argument, so we’re getting there. It's

certainly quicker when you do not attempt to defend the indefensible.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu