Women Entering Sanctums .......

@Rihana

Like what I said in my another response to your post, I respond to each thread based on the content in that post and not what the member did elsewhere which I may or may not be aware. I am not here to debate who is right or wrong. It is not practical for anyone to write anything here in IL if they have to either produce evidence supporting their position or retract what they write. For example, if I write about the power of prayers and if you ask me "prove it or retract", what can I do? I have a right to express my views about the power of prayers from what I have learned.

However, freedom of expression works from both sides. If you feel you need to counter my stupidity of believing the prayers have powers, you have every right to express your view professionally. But the act of disagreeing should stop there and not go beyond like "prove or retract".

I believe none I said including "demi-gods of NASA" or "take it easy" is in response to what you specifically said in your responses above. If it is hurtful, my apologies. Your "Normally, I won't respond" gave me an impression that my statement was hurtful.

Viswa

 

Ayyo! I am frightened of such turnarounds in a thread. Is it time for me to interrupt, say something, kya bataun? Where is my script? Dmnn! Should I stay away, should I thunder away ..(Ira kya karna). First, I never fuel contentious or incendiary threads because no provocation is worth the time spent on extinguishing the flames. I would not have the inclination to write up elaborate defences and counter-arguments. I am fielding multiple things even when typing up this response (disclosure: without a dictionary). Second, I am only amused but never incensed with any lash out on me here. I go ... what eh? what was that ..with a gob-smacked expression. Very interesting reaction!

@Rihana, many moons ago, I learnt from you on how to withdraw when an uncalled "genes" remark was made on you. You acted with utmost grace (kudos!). You scored very high in my book that day. I decided that day that no matter what happens online I would emulate your conduct and never indulge or entertain the caterwauls or walkouts or bluffs against me. Mainly, I don't have the time to nurse grievances and brood over them. Talking about time, when @Laks09 catches me typing this post she won't think twice to pounce on me .."haan you have time to write essays in IL but no time to cook a soup, eh? Where is your soup contribution." Then I have to convince her "Arey baba.. I have never cooked soup in my life, so, I am reading up all about it.. dekhna, I am plodding through your assignment."




Note to myself:

Let me remember this moment in my year-end recountable narratives as that thread which started with granites and ended with soups and not any rancour.

 

Beautilful thoughts

 

Madame Iravati hasn't interacted with you since Dec 13th. No NASA spokesperson ever confirmed such finding. She assumed that after reading the Re: NASA slant in her feedback the poster would search online and read up about the hoax and chuckle at it and utter, "Silly me! Too many NASA faux-endorsements in social media forwards. Thanks for the tip."

A graceful handshake at assisted fact-checking would have ascended your comportment and your blog immensely on your passionate write-up except for a sloppy glitch. Don't blend folklore with NASA and satellites. She meant, let's leave out the NASA certification from personal affirmations unless it is a reasoned argument. In fact, you seemingly did that and she admired you for that chivalrous gesture. Iravati does not know what happened after that. You "smiled" and "smiled some more" outward with your smiley emoji and then swung volte-face and erupted all ballistic over her! Iravati does not know what happened between that smile and conniption. My write-up! My opinion! My belief!

Madame Iravati after Dec 13th had been reading Angela Nagel's Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump. Madame Iravati was oblivious to the volcanic grief her post has caused you. Later, she was cutting her teeth baking her first-ever Chirstmas Pudding. She least suspected that any member would be tormented and affronted by her banter. Also, she hardly realised that she is capable of puncturing or deflating someone so acutely with her bombastic and sick English. She didn't knew that she has that dark power over people. She also didn't know that people are capable of taking that reciprocal 'freedom of expression' so dearly to heart and recoil with the facetious intervention of Iravati. Then Iravati moved on to the next on her wishlist, that is, Mary Beard's bestseller Woman and Power. Just as Iravati was wrapping up The 7th Function of Language by Laurent Binent, she stumbled on a mention. Woah ..She was pleasantly surprised! The she was engrossed in contemplating whether to read Mohsin Hamid's Moth Smoke or Exit West. As she was contemplating this, she lazily picked up Michel Foucoult's Mythologies and skimmed the essays. Then she moved on to Susannah Cahalan's Brain on Fire.

Por Dios! With no warning, you blindsided her with your militant offensive with caps and bold and threatened to walk out of the site. Madame Iravati still has no idea what happened in between that "smiley emoji" and "sick English" phase.

I don't want to indulge in further NASA conspiratorial dust-up on what they confirmed or what they didn't confirm, however, small correction, erm, Iravati for sure never said this: "and warning Moms not to read such blogs to their children". In this entire blog, you won't find that smear against you. Even if my drink is spiked and I am inebriated, I won't resort to such careless ad hominens. I only recommended moms in being proactive to engage their kids with the writings of Sagan and Sacks. Online hallucinations are more inimical than online members against whom it is easier to trump up charges. You may want to tone down on your hallucinations. I don't know about your inside mole or cohort with NASA but please refrain from manipulating and embarrassing yourself with falsified versions of the feedbacks here. The members are being kind. Other online forums may not be admissive of your snide flare-up.

Online is a murderous and uncharitable world where philistines prowl to feed on the comely. True. I am one of them. I have no moral scruples about it. However, your riff on "I am quitting" .."I am quitting because of Iravati .." ... "I am quitting" .."I am leaving because of Iravati" .."Please deactivate", "Please deactivate" is only turning this spectacle and your budding reputation into an amusement over my devilment (cf. devilry). If you wanted to quit you would have quit long ago. I am assuming that you are waiting up on some form of sop or pander from the archons of justice over your indignation. That DDLJ dialogue ..or was it KKHT "Rukh ja ...tussi mat jana".

Let me tell you how the virtual world operates. The overlay of online personas with our real-selves commits to only fleeting ententes. Once you quit, members even the most sympathetic pals to your cause would sigh for an hour (say, a day tops) and then move on and find other congenial mates and write blogs and continue to have fun and forget about you. You didn't take my satellite tip too well. Here's another tip for you. In online world you got to be self-centred. You fancy writing ...write. You love networking ...network. You regard your contribution ...then contribute. Let no detractor or wayward member unnerve you or, what is that word, enucleate you with their bombastic English. Phase up your mettle to withstand silly tiffs. Shore up your tolerance to bear opposition. Above all, don't eagerly dismiss away members with one or two brusque interactions. In IL, members had endured rabid debates and still developed or retained fondness at the end of the day. Rather than giving this site a chance to embrace you, for a change, give yourself another chance to assimilate with the quirks and conflicts and dialectics and epistemes and doxa and phronesis cultivated in this forum (my English rubbed you on the wrong side, so I switched to Greek to make you feel at ease).

And you said it better than I could say in my winding talk, just like you have, others also have freedom to express and disabuse. Be exempting, if not tolerant, of their views. You can vilify Madame Iravati as much you desire, but note, you will invariably find 'sick talk' on virtual forums and the run is no good to you. Stay and shine. In all possibility, you and I won't cross paths again because I rarely visit mainstream snippets.

"I am quitting because of Iravati", "I am quitting", "I am quitting" over this ..this ..this member is getting jaded and boring from its original sensation. Don't let your revulsion for Iravati outrun your affection for other members you wish to continue writing for. As I stated, we might not cross paths again, so you are safe from me. Rest assured, I have no vested interest nor unshakeable hostility in your comings or goings on the site.

 

@Jeeves,

Thank you for your kind wishes and my best wishes for a very happy new year. Enjoy the spirit of the holidays and let this relaxing time bring peace. Let us spread our love to the fellow beings. As a member of IL, I welcome new members and their thoughts whether they agree with mine or not. I try my best not to hurt anyone. If possible, continue to write your thoughts. if not, I understand.

Viswa

 

this is the best way to move on....


belief system is personal - as long as ones' belief system doesn't hurt others, it's perfectly alright.

intervene only if you know for sure that it will affect the person who believes that - if not file under annoying category and close the file.

freedom to express is the key, to believe not believe is readers' freedom.

 

why quits??? expressing your views is must but may not be to the liking of few, so why quit? do we accept all that what others express? cheer up.