Mean what you say

[Guest guest]

>> "Close but no seegar," prabhu. Those were the suggestions of one member

of a

>> COM conference. Please find something where someone says women "can't" be

>> temple presidents, which was your direct claim.

 

>Not to go too far back in history, what point do you think Basu Ghosh is

trying

>to make as recently as this morning?

 

Is this the best you can do, prabhu? How about a straight answer for a

change? I'll let my uncle G(h)oshes communicate directly about what points

they are trying to make to each other. This was your statement:

 

"next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers

say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women can't

be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women can't be temple

presidents...next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents..."

"next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers

say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women can't

be temple presidents..."

 

>Does the above post meet an acceptable level of proof for you?

 

For a sane man, nothing short of actual proof is acceptable proof. I may not

be sane, but at least I try to follow the sane man's standards. First show

me a first time, then we can talk about "next times."

 

>So, here I am simultaneously attacked from 2 sides, one by Basu Ghosh

arguing >against women as temple presidents and demanding proof to the

contrary,

 

Which you cannot give.

 

>and on the other side, Guru Krsna arguing that noone has spoken out

against >women as temple presidents

 

No, no, dear prabhu. But we will set the record and the facts straight,

whatever it may take. That is not what Guru Krsna das is arguing. Guru Krsna

das is challenging Madhava Gosh prabhu to verify his statement:

 

"next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers

say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women can't

be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women can't be temple

presidents...next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents..."

"next time GHQers say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers

say women can't be temple presidents...next time GHQers say women "can't"

be temple presidents..."

 

Has your dear Godbrother Ghosh said that women *can't* be temple presidents?

If so, then please kindly quote him.

 

>>For example, this idea that "the "GHQers would campaign so strongly

against >>something." What does it mean?

 

>That private issues have been taken public out of context and splashed all

over >VNN. That there is currently a very strident campaign being waged to

have woman

>who are outspoken to be expelled from ISKCON.

 

OK, finally some particulars. Now the question: Who is waging "a very

strident campaign"? The GHQ? The CIA? The KGB? The XYZ? But isn't all this

"GHQ says,GHQ did,GHQ thinks,GHG plots,GHQ conspires," etc. a

bit like the prattle of fearful children? Couldn't we as well subsitute "The

boogie man" for "GHQ" in practically all of the recent "GHQ" phrases spoken

by "GHQ bashers" and thereby accomplished a basically equivalent sensational

effect?

 

[NB: GHQ *was* a COM conference (lasting a mere 6-8 weeks) of unique

individual beings. It was not and is not now a club, organization, political

party, conspiracy, terrorist group, coup d' etat,...]

 

Therefore, most recent statements about "GHQ/GHQers" are rather meaningless

and imaginary. The "GHQ" and the "GHQers" that are constantly being

challenged, blasphemed, harassed, feared, hated, etc. don't even exist!

You're fighting an imaginary enemy, only. But I'll let you in on some really

highly confidential, subsersive, classified information now:

 

[snip]

 

(TOP SECRET!!!)

 

(AP) Washington, D.C.-- KALI (Kali Agents Lurk Inside) is the most insidious

and highly invisible undermining force that has been seriously threatening

the International Society for Krishna Consciousness since its

founder-acaraya departed in 1977. No one knows how large or vast is its

membership, how extensive its resources, how powerful its influence, or how

intelligent its masterminds! But the onslaughts of KALI upon ISKCON have

continued without cessation for the past 22 years, and the results have been

devastating. (story on page xx)