Calling a Foul a Foul

[Guest guest]

> > Janesvara replied:

> > > Unacceptable to you. has contributed thousands of lines of comments

which I have always found candid and at times humorous.

> Srila wrote:

> > That doesn't authorize him to say anything and everything as he likes,

even to the point of *verbal abuse.*

There's no doubt Madhava Ghosh offers a rich contribution to this conference,

and I myself generally look forward to what he posts.

However, when anyone makes a foul, they should be called on it. Let's admit

it, and we can move on. Simple enough point.

> It is minor minor minor. A waste of discussion time in this conference.

Then why is everyone making it such a big deal to make all these excuses to

defend it? What if MGd's comment really offended Virender? (We haven't heard

from him lately.) That means MGd's foul comment really amounted to a foul

play. This transgression of etiquette (vyatikrama) cannot be just explained

away by all your rationalizations. A foul is a foul. Therefore any decent

society or association enjoins its members (all gentle-minded persons) to

eschew (ie, avoid entirely) such words. Let's be gentlemen, please.

Even if a person becmes impertinent, a gentleman doesn't resort to using

four-letters words in response.

This kind of social self-flattering reminds me of our ISKCON's groupthink

mentality: Bhagavan, Ramesvara, Bhavananda, Harikesa, etc performed so much

valuable service; but because no one cared (or dared) to call them on when

they erred, they were given the rope to hang themselves with. In the process,

we allowed them to detour the entire society with them as they introduced

adulterated standards, bogus philosophy and preaching. So now you guys want

to do the same? Now we can use any four-letter-word as we please? Is that

what you want?

To rearticulate my contention, MGd invoked one of the foulest innuendos in the

English language in reference to a particular discussant. Such a tactic, no

matter how so-called indirect, is demeaning and insulting and unbefitting ANY

civil discussion. The insinuation was clear.

Such terms are banned from the TV, newspapers, radio and any civil or cultured

forum. Even more sophisticated porn magazines like Playboy avoid the word.

What's with you guys to make a big fuss to defend it?

If it's a foul, then it's foul. If it's such small stuff, then admit it, let

it go and move on. Otherwise, as much as you try to defend it means it's a

problem for you. So, if it's a problem, let's resolve it here and now.

What limits do you want to set? Where you draw the line? You tell me.

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

>

>

> If it's a foul, then it's foul. If it's such small stuff, then admit it, let

> it go and move on. Otherwise, as much as you try to defend it means it's a

> problem for you. So, if it's a problem, let's resolve it here and now.

>

> What limits do you want to set? Where you draw the line? You tell me.

>

> Srila dasa

 

Two things.

 

One, as a soccer coach, I know that some terms in any given society are

loaded

with negative baggage and the use of such terms in a soccer game will draw a

warning from a ref or even a yellow card. As a matter of fact, I spent a

month

on Disiplinery Restrictions in high school for punctuating an appeal to a ref's

decision with a loud "Jesus Christ, ref!" In the context, it was not used as

a

theological appeal to the ref for a Christlike grant of mercy for my alleged

infringement on the 10 yard cushion meant to be given the other team on an

indirect kick. Anyway, yes, use of that term is a foul. Accepted.

 

So sorry for crossing that line, I will attempt to be civil (down tongue,

down I

say).

 

The interesting thing is that what is crossing the line in one culture is not

the

same in another. For instance, I am told that the a word for the church, a

form

of tabernacle, is the worst possible thing to say in French Canada, although

a

literal translation in English has no cultural baggage at all.

 

It is interesting that in the US, most bad words have to do with bodily

functions. Does this mean as a asociety we are anal retentive?

 

Secondly, what would the proper term be to use in this conerence for the type

of

activity that prompted the use of the original term?