Ramakanta forgets what has already been proven.

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> The points are a simplification of our position. The evidence proving the

> points is not contained within the points, but given separately in NCIP

> etc.

 

So you admit that your points a) and b) alone do not prove your point c).

Please confirm.

 

 

> You have agreed with a point a) identical ...

 

You can later present your arguments. Now please just write, "We admit that

our points a) and b) alone do not prove our point c)".

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> The points are a simplification of our position. The evidence proving the

> points is not contained within the points, but given separately in NCIP

> etc.

 

So you admit that your points a) and b) alone do not prove your point c).

Please confirm.

 

The points are proven by the evidence used to support them. Do you remember?

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

 

 

 

Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:25:00 AM

Ramakanta forgets what has already been proven.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

 

> The points are a simplification of our position. The evidence proving the

> points is not contained within the points, but given separately in NCIP

> etc.

 

So you admit that your points a) and b) alone do not prove your point c).

Please confirm.

 

 

> You have agreed with a point a) identical ...

 

You can later present your arguments. Now please just write, "We admit that

our points a) and b) alone do not prove our point c)".

 

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

http://new.mail.

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> The points are proven by the evidence used to support them.

 

Okay, then please write, "We admit that our points a) and b) alone do not

prove our point c). But we say that it is proven by other evidence."

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu,

PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> The points are proven by the evidence used to support them.

 

<Okay, then please write, "We admit that our points a) and b) alone do not

prove our point c). But we say that it is proven by other evidence.">

 

If points a) and b) are correct then point c) is proven. What are you going on

about?

 

Point a) and b) are not evidence, they are assertions that we claim are

statements of fact. I never claimed otherwise. You are clearly once again

trying to shift attention away from your own defeat.

 

The proof for a) and b) are not contained within the statements of fact

themselves, but in the heaps of accompanying evidence (NCIP etc) I have

presented over the previous year. I have simply defeated all your challenges to

these two factual statements (a and b). That is why c) stands and you are

defeated.

 

You now clearly wish to change the rules of this debate to somehow allow

invisible evidence to challenge the status quo that was set in place and then

finally locked down with visible evidence. I can understand why you are doing

this since you have been completely defeated on the basis of visible evidence.

But you will need to find someone else for that new, dreamy debate.

 

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

 

 

Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:17:00 PM

Re: Ramakanta forgets what has already been proven.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> The points are proven by the evidence used to support them.

 

Okay, then please write, "We admit that our points a) and b) alone do not

prove our point c). But we say that it is proven by other evidence."

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

http://tv./collections/265

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If points a) and b) are correct then point c) is proven.

 

That is the inference that was missing. But you have not confirmed it by a

quote from Srila Prabhupada. Therefore you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's

instruction and the rules of this debate.

 

Now you can either admit that the above statement (the inference) is just

your opinion, or you can present a statement by Srila Prabhupada that

confirms it. If you write anything else, I will put it at the end the queue

to be discussed later.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If points a) and b) are correct then point c) is proven.

 

That is the inference that was missing. But you have not confirmed it by a

quote from Srila Prabhupada. Therefore you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's

instruction and the rules of this debate.

 

OK for the third time:

 

Your current challenge:

 

<You have not proven that the only way to authorize a devotee to be a diksa

guru in ISKCON is an order to the GBC which must have been seen by you.>

 

Is self defeating, and hence a logical fallacy, since:

 

You have not first proven that Srila Prabhupada has authorised that Ramakanta

das (or anyone else) can challenge his visible, signed directives to the GBC on

the basis of theoretical, invisible orders.

 

The very fact that you are asking for visible evidence to prove we must have

visible evience is self-contradictory. Why do you want visible evidence if you

do not accept that the debate must be based on visible evidence? And if you do

accept this then where is your evidence allowing the GBC to change the status

quo? See how hopelessly defeated you are.

 

Thus your challenge suffers from self-referential incoherence. Your challenge

demands authorisation from Srila Prabhupada confirming the fact that evidence

must be visible, yet you are unable to justify that very challenge on the basis

of such authorisation from Srila Prabhupada.

 

It is madness to even suggest that Srila Prabhupada would sanction a system

whereby any nutcase can come along and stop a system he personally set in place

(with accompanying orders not to change anything), on the basis of absolutely

no evidence. Yet this is what your challenge involves. It is the product of a

kali-yuga mind for sure.

 

Your challenge also implicitly concedes defeat within a debate where the rule

is the evidence must be visible.

 

You now need to find someone else willing to debate you on the basis of new,

crazy rules that allow visible orders to be challenged or terminated on the

basis of phantom evidence. Good luck.

Best wishes

Ys

Yadu

 

 

 

 

Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)

<Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Thursday, March 1, 2007 8:01:00 AM

Re: Ramakanta forgets what has already been proven.

 

 

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

> If points a) and b) are correct then point c) is proven.

 

That is the inference that was missing. But you have not confirmed it by a

quote from Srila Prabhupada. Therefore you did not follow Srila Prabhupada's

instruction and the rules of this debate.

 

Now you can either admit that the above statement (the inference) is just

your opinion, or you can present a statement by Srila Prabhupada that

confirms it. If you write anything else, I will put it at the end the queue

to be discussed later.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa

 

-----------------------

To from this mailing list, send an email to:

Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

 

 

 

_____________________________

_____

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

http://new.mail.

[Guest guest]

Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP!

 

You did not follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction:

 

"The process of speaking in spiritual circles is to say something upheld by

the scriptures. One should at once quote from scriptural authority to back

up what he is saying." (Bg 17.15 purport)

 

You said, "If points a) and b) are correct then point c) is proven", but you

did not back this up by a quote.

 

If you think that you don't have to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction,

that you can present statements without having the confirm them by quotes,

then please explain why you think that.

 

ys Ramakanta dasa