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