Mean what you say

[Guest guest]

>> 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?

 

>Quite understandable that fear-mongers would need something else to latch

on to >now that their Y2K doomsday predictions have turned out to be an

anti-climatic >non-event. Topic for researchers (particularly those in the

psychoanalytic >field): Is there any connection between the "GHQ bashers"

and the guys behind >all these doomsday predictions?

 

>Your servant,

>Goloka Candra dasa

 

Sadhu! Sadhu!

[Guest guest]

>

>

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

> If so, then please kindly quote him.

 

Dear Basu Ghosh, please clarify for me, are you saying women cannot be temple

presidents? Apparently your statements on the matter to date have been too

ambiguous for Guru Krsna to understand.

 

There is a quote where Srila Prabhupada says woman can be temple presidents.

Is

your position that this quote is to be accepted at face value?

 

If noone is saying women can't be temple presidents, then I accept defeat at

the hands of Guru Krsna, and am happy that every one agrees that women can be

temple presidents.

 

>

>

> 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.

 

So their website is a figment of my imagination?

 

Or is this simply some legalistic loopholing?