Social media and anti-Dasam Granth movement.

[CdnSikhGirl]

33 minutes ago, Ragmaala said:

Just wanted to point out that there are some schools of thought in Sikhism which practice Sargun Worship of Guru Granth Sahib,as Guru Gobind Singh Ji dictated pargat guran ki deh.  Treat the Guru Granth like a living physical body of Guru . Baba Nand Singh from Nanaksar emphasized this point.

Some aspects of Sargun Worship include beautiful rumalas, blankets, room climate control, perfumes, serving food 3 times a day, massaging the body of Guru Granth Sahib, treating the pages as real organs, making sure the palaks used to cover pages are smooth , not rough, having pillows on sides for comfort, having a large bed for Guru Granth Sahib.  This is Sargun worship.

Just wanted to broaden your horizon, that these schools of thought also exist.

 

 

Yes I know we do this... but is it the physical that we are worshipping? I don't think so... I think it's still the knowledge contained within. We are treating it as such because it IS our living (in a very real way) Guru. The knowledge / truth is alive. The pages and binding and ink are not. So yes we are doing physical things to show veneration because it is the physical (sargun) manifestation of the very real nirgun formless knowledge and truth. It's not the physical entity we are venerating, we are just using physical means to do so. But in the grand scheme of things from Waheguru Ji's point of view does it matter? Many people do not have a saroop of SGGSJ in their home or live far from a Gurdwara, but they have full copy of it on their mobile or computer.  When the file is closed, or the device turned off, did the knowledge disappear? Or only the means by which we were accessing it? I agree that even on mobile screens, we should be careful where we read Gurbani, is our head covered etc. Because even though it may not be a physical saroop of SGGSJ, but all of the knowledge from SGGSJ is contained in it.  

What is your thinking on this? Should electronic copies of SGGSJ be given same respect? It would be difficult to put a rumala on a cell phone after all.  But all of the knowledge is still there, fully intact. So in your opinion, is it the physical pages and binding which make it our living Guru... or the knowledge / truth contained within it?  One can be destroyed, the other can not. One will still exist even if every physical copy in the world were destroyed. Truth doesn't die. That in my opinion is why we treat it as living. Btw myself whenever I read Gurbani from my phone, I make sure to wash my hands, my head is always covered anyway because I tie a dastar... but I give it (as much as possible/practical anyway) same respect as a physical saroop. 

[CdnSikhGirl]

57 minutes ago, Ragmaala said:

By making this statement you are interpreting the work of Guru according to your own conditioned mind, whether you call it feminism, humanist or eglatarian.

I find your statement sexist.

You are saying all women are same as depicted in Charitropakhyan.  That is a very sexist statement.

Whereas I believe that Guru ji is talking about certain kind of women, he is not saying all women are same.

 

You are missing what I am saying. I'm not saying that he intended for it to be interpreted as all women... in fact I don't believe he would do so! 
What I am saying is that a large percentage of Singhs HAVE interpreted as such and used it to belittle women in general. Hence why it's dangerous. And if Guru Ji knew in advance that it could cause that, why would he give us something that would essentially be equivalent to handing a murderer a gun? (since humans in general due to our nature are more likely to misuse it than use it for good). If I give a murderer a gun and tell that murderer "No you use this only for good ok? Don't misuse it!) Is it my fault at all - if the murderer goes out and shoots someone?? The facts are the no matter what the original intent was, or even if he wrote Charitropakhyan, the result of it is that many Singhs who read it ARE interpreting it as being about the female gender in general, and ARE using it as justification to place limitations and restrictions on women due to distrust and contempt...or even simply even looking down their noses at the female gender. There exists no opposite works that would put men in a bad light with women. So while even if it was 'some' women in a minority that it's talking about... it still gives the impression by the lack of equivalent writing against men, that women are in fact more immoral and deceitful than men. 

Tell the boys in a classroom a bunch of stories about little girls breaking little boy's hearts. But don't tell them any positive stories (or very few compared). You will have at the end a few results:  1) Little boys will think that little girls break their hearts (even if the stories only depicted certain types of girls) 2) little girls will think it's an attack on them because they know that not all little girls break all little boy's hearts 3) Both little girls and little boys in the class will automatically think that little boys do not break little girl's hearts (because there were no storied depicting little boys breaking little girl's hearts). Little boys will start to resent little girls. Little girls will feel like they were wrongly attacked. The little boys will think "we're better than little girls because we don't break their hearts while they do break ours".  ---- and you won't convince then otherwise because the skewed examples used as stories, reach the subconscious mind. In fact, a psychologist read Chritropakhyan, and came to that very conclusion... psychological conditioning of the male readers such that the result is conditioned contempt and distrust toward women in general.

Anyway again, I mean no disrespect. We are just talking out the effects which we all know have happened. And you can certainly see why people might question something which can cause the above effects.  

In general, after reading all the charters, what percentage of Singhs do you think coming out of it once they have read all of them:

1. See women in general as being immoral / unable to be trusted / deceitful (or at least moreso than they consider their own gender to be?
2. Remain neutral thinking it's only speaking about a small group / type of women?
3. Come out of reading it thinking "hey women are great, moral and spiritual beings"?? 

My guess (it's just a guess so no science behind this) but I would surmise that roughly 80% of Singhs come out of it with at least SOME disdain towards women that they never had prior to reading it. They may just distrust women just a little bit less than they did before... they may think in their minds just a little bit less about all the women in their life. Since very few of the chartars are about immoral men, they will likely also come out of it thinking their own gender is just that little bit higher avastha than females. Then, that breeds contempt, and it turns into Singhs voting to keep women out of certain seva etc. (because hey even if we are seen as just the teeniest bit less moral than the ones making the decisions, they will naturally think it bad for us to have those opportunities which should be filled with those who are more moral etc. So it HAS and will continue to have real repercussions for us.) I think the rest 15% occupy #2 remaining neutral. I don't think ANY Singh would come out of reading the charitars praising women or thinking higher of them compared to prior to reading them. 

 

 

[Ragmaala]

40 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

Yes I know we do this... but is it the physical that we are worshipping? I don't think so... I think it's still the knowledge contained within. We are treating it as such because it IS our living (in a very real way) Guru. The knowledge / truth is alive. The pages and binding and ink are not. So yes we are doing physical things to show veneration because it is the physical (sargun) manifestation of the very real nirgun formless knowledge and truth. It's not the physical entity we are venerating, we are just using physical means to do so. But in the grand scheme of things from Waheguru Ji's point of view does it matter? Many people do not have a saroop of SGGSJ in their home or live far from a Gurdwara, but they have full copy of it on their mobile or computer.  When the file is closed, or the device turned off, did the knowledge disappear? Or only the means by which we were accessing it? I agree that even on mobile screens, we should be careful where we read Gurbani, is our head covered etc. Because even though it may not be a physical saroop of SGGSJ, but all of the knowledge from SGGSJ is contained in it.  

What is your thinking on this? Should electronic copies of SGGSJ be given same respect? It would be difficult to put a rumala on a cell phone after all.  But all of the knowledge is still there, fully intact. So in your opinion, is it the physical pages and binding which make it our living Guru... or the knowledge / truth contained within it?  One can be destroyed, the other can not. One will still exist even if every physical copy in the world were destroyed. Truth doesn't die. That in my opinion is why we treat it as living. Btw myself whenever I read Gurbani from my phone, I make sure to wash my hands, my head is always covered anyway because I tie a dastar... but I give it (as much as possible/practical anyway) same respect as a physical saroop. 

You just love to argue, don't you.

I am just making you aware of other schools of thought in Sikhi, which focus on Physical Worshiping as one of the aspects. Yes, the actual pages, ink, binding.

You just have to acknowledge it, and move on, it is not something to debate about lol.

[Ragmaala]

21 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

it still gives the impression by the lack of equivalent writing against men, that women are in fact more immoral and deceitful than men. 

haha

Feminism or Maybe Humanist... who is angry why didn't Guru Ji write particularly against MEN .

what a joke!

the tales are in fact a slap to men, these men were so lustful, thinking with their dicks instead brains that they got manipulated by treacherous women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ragmaala]

ps. stop writing essays, its not going to change my convictions, they are firm in stone.

Whats your Zodiac Sign ? Cancer ? or maybe Libra /: You seem very emotional.

[chatanga1]

4 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

Chatanga1: I missed your post because honestly I have you blocked. I saw your post only now at work. To answer your question...

 

I'm intrigued...

 

4 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

Sorry for the long post.

 

Not as sorry as me Darling. I read through it ALL to find no answer. Only the same stuff you have posted here so many times.

But honestly, I didn't think you would have answered it anyway.

[Ragmaala]

30 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

Tell the boys in a classroom a bunch of stories about little girls breaking little boy's hearts.

It is true that women/girls enjoy their power of boys/women. Females are generally more manipulative, I have seen it in real life.

If you take away Lust from Men , the women will lose their power over men.

So Guru Ji has told the truth. Women indeed have the power through their physical beauty & antics to entice lusty men to get them whatever done from them.

Maybe you have not personally experienced this power, because you were not feminine & too masculine to scare away the boys.

Even if a girl is fat, ugly, she still has this power if a man is extremely thirst or not good looking himself.

So both Sikh man & woman have to avoid above mentioned, and be faithful to each other.

If a Guru does not tell his kids about what can happen in the world , how can he know his kids to expect what to do ? or what they should do .

Good parents talk to their kids about sex, drugs & many things. Should they stop talking about this.

SImilarly, Guru has showed the Human Nature of both men & women, especially when they are engrossed in deep lust .

 

 

 

 

[Ragmaala]

anyways, I feel exhausted I need to stay away from Sikhawareness for a short while. lol

 

[chatanga1]

21 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

 

 To challenge Things to want to know for sure... They can't just turn it off. It usually applies to everything. Why is the sky blue?

I'm  still in the middle group...

 

To ask questions is a basic human characteristic. It's something we will always have, and it's the reason that we don't live in caves anymore.

The difference is that when a response is made to questions asked, those answers should be something that you learn from. The Sky is blue? Yes and science tells us why. Is there now any point in labouring on this question : "Why is the sky blue? Not really because you have had the answer.

 

I don't believe that you are in the middle group at all.

 

Your actions certainly reveal that you aren't. The fact is that the disinformation concerning the role of the poets with Sri CharitroPakhyan was invalid, and a more correct and complete piece of information regarding the text was put up here in August. Yet you, last December still quoted the disinformation that was quoted here in the first place. Intellectually that is very dishonest in my book.

[GurpreetKaur]

5 minutes ago, Ragmaala said:

anyways, I feel exhausted I need to stay away from Sikhawareness for a short while. lol

 

Haha.. I seriously have to salute satkirin ji for that, it's always other people who either get exhausted or give up but she is always the one with Last words. Go satkirin ji lol

[CdnSikhGirl]

Erm my intention again was not to get Ragmaala Ji's kacheras in a bunch! It was just to show the EFFECT that reading Charitropakhyan has on minds of men. That majority then come out of it with distrust and contempt towards us. Even if it was aimed at warning only about a small amount of women which Ragmaala Ji tried to say earlier but now he's saying that women in general ALL have some manipulative power over men. Which I don't think so. But the effect is still what matters. Did Guru Ji intend for his Singhs to use it to hold Singhnis in contempt, place restrictions on them, distrust them, etc? If so, does it show Guru Ji didn't care about us? Or was he even author in first place?  As a woman who has NEVER done these things or would even dream of it, is it fair that Singhs distrust me and because of that give me less opportunities and generally look down on me because I'm female? I would never do those things, even before I found Sikhi. I consider sex to be a sacred spiritual act between a married couple. I was at 40, a virgin when I got married. Hard to believe for a westerner eh? When I was younger I 'dated' and was even pressurized to do it by guys but didn't. Guys saying oh it's nothing, I love you I promise I'll never leave you etc. Thank goodness I never listened to them!!! With their boyish charms and wiles and all!! LOL Many gullible girls have caved to their wiles u know!! But seriously I was a virgin when I recently got married. And was scared to death of the 'act' if you know what I mean. So to have Singhs look at me am with thoughts in their mind that I can't be trusted and that I'm inherently immoral and deceitful hurts...

Anyway I was just showing why a lot of us are having issues with that particular part of DG and its not as simple of he wrote it or not. It's very complicated. Because to say he wrote it means he either didn't like us females thought lowly of us or just maybe didn't care about what would happen to us as result of this writing.

so it's not an 'attack on DG' but rather trying to find out if some of DG was an attack on females. Ragmaala Ji illustrated it first he said it was only about certain women but now he admits he thinks all women are capable of these things. So has it affected his mind in how he thinks of us? It proves my point. 

And this is independent of the arguments about sexual content and pen names etc. 

Btw I'm not arguing I am typing this very calmly. I'd like genuine answers to to these questions. 

[BhagatSingh]

9 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

Even if it was aimed at warning only about a small amount of women which Ragmaala Ji tried to say earlier but now he's saying that women in general ALL have some manipulative power over men. Which I don't think so.

Women do and men need to learn about it. This is why Guru Gobind Singh ji made these stories accessible to his Singhs.

14 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

so it's not an 'attack on DG' but rather trying to find out if some of DG was an attack on females. Ragmaala Ji illustrated it first he said it was only about certain women but now he admits he thinks all women are capable of these things. So has it affected his mind in how he thinks of us? It proves my point. 

Men take way more risks than women. This leads to some men becoming villains and others becoming heroes. The same quality that all men have - risk taking - can go either way, it can do good or do evil.

All men are capable of taking great risk.
So men do evil things with it.
Did I just attack all men?
No
Similarly DG does not attack all women, even though all women have manipulative and covert power, and power by proxy, there are some that do evil things with it.

If you told us there are men who do evil things. We wouldn't just dismiss you. We get that there's men like that, and we need to know about what they do to keep ourselves safe.

You need to understand that there are women who evil things but it is all "under the cover" and goes largely unnoticed or it is downplayed in the name of protecting women. But instead of acknowledging it, you keep taking it personally and dismiss it. That's not fair.

It's important for men to learn about women like that. Bill Burr talks about this in his comedy routines, uses examples of kings, ministers and women from our time period to explain why men need this education.

^
This is why texts like Charitropakhyan are important for Sikhs regardless of who writes it.

[CdnSikhGirl]

Okay I can acknowledge that there are *some* women who might do these things. But my point was that the effect of reading it, often has Singhs suspecting ALL women and looking at us with distrust and contempt. This has very real implications for us, when Singhs automatically look down on ALL of us without giving us a chance, and using these writings as reason to place limitations on us and call us ALL inherently more immoral than themselves. 

But just like some women can do these things, so can some men. And in real life, I would hazard this plays out more often at least in the west. As I said, when I was younger I was pressurized for sex by dates. They tried to lure me to do it by telling me they 'loved' me or would 'never leave me' or 'how special I was' to them etc. This to me is the exact same thing Charitropakhyan speaks about but it's males doing it. 

But for a female reading DG, there is no appropriate warning of being taken advantage of.  Now, please before you get your kacheras in a bunch like Ragmaala... its not my intent to make this seem feminist. Why it matters, is that it pertains to what the purpose of DG was.  

Was DG written for only Singhs to read and not Singhnis? 
Is there another 'granth' that addresses these things for Guru Ji's Singhnis? (or did he even care about us?)
Was the intended effect of Charitropakhyan, to make ALL Singhs hold ALL SInghnis in contempt and trust women less in general?
And if it wasn't the 'intended' effect, then certainly Guru Ji would have known it would still cause this thinking in his 'Singhs' which would turn into unfair treatment and disdain towards women in general from his 'Singhs'
So, if Guru Ji was the author... did he think lower of his Singhnis than his Singhs or did he just not care what would happen to us as a result of this writing? 

Because as I said, I have seen it in real life. A Singh try to belittle me using examples from DG, telling me that Singhnis sitting on tabyia etc restrictions are actually not about sootak etc (which are against Gurmat as well) but because Singhs in general look down on us as being more immoral, and us doing seva of SGGSJ we might *desecrate* SGGSJ. In general... he views men as being of much higher calibre than women and so that to him justified restrictions placed on us.  Is this really fair?  Because it's being practiced in many Gurdwaras! Then he proposed to me and said my soul would be saved by staying at home and having his babies - he wanted to dominate/control me.  Others I know (one member in particular on here whom I won't mention) takes it to mean that women are lesser beings, and a downgrade to males and justification for women giving men more respect for their "higher position" over women than women deserve in return - to the point that wives should BOW to their husbands. Of course SGGSJ does NOT teach this at all! So is it fair that I as a woman, am bearing the brunt of it, being distrusted (in general), being seen as lustful, or immoral because of these writings? Even when I would NEVER do any of these things?? Is it fair that I am being seen by Singhs as somehow 'less' than them spiritually simply because I am female, that they look down their noses at me for simply being female... as a result of these writings? And then, the pure absence of such writings also showing men can do these same things either shows that the author did not think men do these things (generally) or that the writing was only aimed at males reading it?? But certainly something that was meant to be 'Gurbani' would be universally applicable for all Sikhs (for males and females)???

 Please don't be mad at me for raising these questions. It really matters to me what Guru Ji thought of women... and what he intended for us in life. It matters to me if Guru Ji sees us women as lesser beings. Because Guru = God. And I couldn't live knowing that my very creator thinks less of me, because of the body that was fashioned by that very same creator. 

 

 

 

[GurpreetKaur]

Then he proposed to me and said my soul would be saved by staying at home and having his babies

^^^

Hahaha.. Can we put that in husband wife joke section ? Lol

Women are lesser beings, and a downgrade to males and justification for women giving men more respect for their "higher position" 

^^^ 

You should not take it to heart, people project themselves. So, just smile and move on. ;). OR you can say, how can my lesser being self serve you? The moment you will stop feeding their Ego, they will back down. 

[Ragmaala]

We dont look down upon women, especially not Singhnis or Sikhnis, I infact respect Sikh girls who keep rehit or even read Gurbani or even are mildly interested in spirituality.

We are just careful about women in general, punjabi, non-punjabi included. You just need this knowledge to survive in todays society where sex can be used as a manipulation by both men & women. So Sikh guys & Sikh girls need to know these stories from Charitropakhyan. Because these things do happen in real life.

See nature has given power to both men & women. Nature is not cruel. If Nature gave physical strength to men , then she also gave power to women. And these women can utilize their power in whichever way they can. It can be creativity, creating life or destruction of self & others.  @BhagatSingh@Satkirin_Kaur

So that is why it was essential to know about one of the ways where  women can manipulate lustful men.

Look for positive !!!!

And Is it wrong to be cautious about effects of lust on both  men & women?    Nope.

[CdnSikhGirl]

11 hours ago, Ragmaala said:

We dont look down upon women, especially not Singhnis or Sikhnis, I infact respect Sikh girls who keep rehit or even read Gurbani or even are mildly interested in spirituality.

It's good that [you] do not look down on us because of it (or any other reason). But many do and one in particular on here views us as sub-human, downgrades to men. At the very least most Singhs still have at least some thought that males are superior to females in both physical life ....and spirituality. And it's not fair. But the question is not even about what you all think... the thread is about authenticity and intent of DG. What matters to me more than anything is what our Guru (and hence our very Creator, Waheguru Ji) thought of us.  

We are just careful about women in general, punjabi, non-punjabi included. You just need this knowledge to survive in todays society where sex can be used as a manipulation by both men & women. So Sikh guys & Sikh girls need to know these stories from Charitropakhyan. Because these things do happen in real life.

Okay, but shouldn't women also be warned to be careful about men in general too?? Or was the Charitropakhyan only meant to be read by males? And if so, shouldn't Gurbani be applicable to both? The way it's written, the part which is applicable to women is "dont be a slut" and "dont deceive men". Theres no message to tell women to be careful about men who might deceive them for sex etc.

See nature has given power to both men & women. Nature is not cruel. If Nature gave physical strength to men , then she also gave power to women. And these women can utilize their power in whichever way they can. It can be creativity, creating life or destruction of self & others.  @BhagatSingh@Satkirin_Kaur

Except that men can and DO use their wiles and charms to get women into bed. Seen a LOT here in Western world in fact! So thats not some weapon or power given to only women. So its unfair to see only women as having (or using) it.

So that is why it was essential to know about one of the ways where  women can manipulate lustful men.

Again, men can and DO manipulate women in the same way. And I would say equally or possibly even more given that many women find it difficult to be assertive when saying no.

Look for positive !!!!

Im trying but it all keeps leading me back to the question did our Guru look down on (or just not care about) women?

And Is it wrong to be cautious about effects of lust on both  men & women?    Nope. 

Except when the effects point finger at women as being only instigator and men as only gullible victims.

So its nice that you personally dont hold anything against us as a result of reading that (but are you sure that you dont harbour even the tiniest bit of distrust towards us, or look down on us just a little compared to yourself??) But what I am concerned about worried about is what our Guru thought of women, what was his intent? Was his intent to pit us against each other and cause animosity and distrust, which would then turn into males placing restrictions and more control on women? Did our Guru (and hence our very creator Waheguru Ji) look down on us as women?? THAT matters... and is why many find it difficult to digest him writing something like Charitropakhyan. Aside from the pen names, writing style, lack of clear history, and the fact that the stories are eerily similar to older stories in Hindu tradition. So I hope you can undferstand why some of us have questions...

[dalsingh101]

20 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

So its nice that you personally dont hold anything against us as a result of reading that (but are you sure that you dont harbour even the tiniest bit of distrust towards us, or look down on us just a little compared to yourself??) But what I am concerned about worried about is what our Guru thought of women, what was his intent? Was his intent to pit us against each other and cause animosity and distrust, which would then turn into males placing restrictions and more control on women? Did our Guru (and hence our very creator Waheguru Ji) look down on us as women?? THAT matters... and is why many find it difficult to digest him writing something like Charitropakhyan. Aside from the pen names, writing style, lack of clear history, and the fact that the stories are eerily similar to older stories in Hindu tradition. So I hope you can undferstand why some of us have questions...

You keep saying stuff like that and ignore the way Panjab Sikh girls are often the most headstrong and free girls out of all of the asian communities. 

 

Go out and about in major cities in Canada with a sizeable Sikh community and see for yourself. 

[paapiman]

20 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

Haha.. I seriously have to salute satkirin ji for that, it's always other people who either get exhausted or give up but she is always the one with Last words. Go satkirin ji lol

Sister, what do you think are the odds that she can win a formal debate (on Sikhism) with the likes of Bhagat Singh jee, etc. IMHO, close to zero. if not zero.

Even a kid can come on this forum and keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. 

Silence does not always indicate weakness; it can be an attribute of a wise human too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

On 26/01/2016 at 1:27 AM, JustAnotherSingh said:

 

 

@chatanga1 what was the role of the poets in CharitroPakhyan? I didn't read the original exchange with Khoj, just interested as to your thoughts.  

 

Read it and see.

[GurpreetKaur]

1 minute ago, paapiman said:

 

Silence does not always indicate weakness; it can be an attribute of a wise human too.

 

Bhul chuk maaf

Veerji, there was a sarcasm hidden in the post, if you read my other post you will get it. 

About winning debate, nobody has ever won a debate. People have their mind already made up, and all they do is try to convince others to change their mind( I do that too lol). 

I am neutral about DG and more than willing to listen to everybody but when people get all angry and defensive then that makes me not wanna listen  to them.

bhul chuk maaf

[chatanga1]

20 hours ago, GurpreetKaur said:

I seriously have to salute satkirin ji for that, it's always other people who either get exhausted or give up but she is always the one with Last words.

 

There's also those who know how devious she is and don't bother. She is a liar, and it has been a constant trait of hers throughout her time on this forum.

 

17 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

 

Btw I'm not arguing I am typing this very calmly. I'd like genuine answers to to these questions. 

 

@GurpreetKaur  This question of hers has had some many genuine answers. But she chooses to ignore them because she knows she is wrong. Then posts some long post trying to skirt the answers. She is one of those people who will never know peace. And that's sad.

 

16 hours ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

 Please don't be mad at me for raising these questions.

 

@GurpreetKaur  Again with questions she has had replies to.

 

14 minutes ago, paapiman said:

Even a kid can come on this forum and keep repeating the same arguments over and over again. 

Silence does not always indicate weakness; it can be an attribute of a wise human too.

 

I don't think even a kid would keep repeating the same arguments over and over. And some would prefer silence than engage with someone who is beyond learning.

[chatanga1]

8 minutes ago, GurpreetKaur said:

 

About winning debate, nobody has ever won a debate. People have their mind already made up, and all they do is try to convince others to change their mind( I do that too lol).

 

Debates do turn into contests, which is good and can be bad. But where there is strong evidence in favour of either side, then obstinacy or deviancy is a very base act. It shows that the other side is simply not interested in learning, and that is what we are all here to do.

[CdnSikhGirl]

I will show who the liar is... he calls me a liar because I posted his unsolicited and unwarranted PMs goading me to leave the forum and wrote that he was "telling" me to leave.  Okay, the wording wasn't exactly "telling" me to leave. But asking in a tone that is condescending and made it clear I wasn't welcome. That is the same thing as telling... somehow he thinks it's different and that he was being nice.  So since then, he has called me a liar. 

Out of the blue, and without provocation I received this PM from chatanga1:

That started a conversation where he then called me 'vulgar' for standing up for women's rights. 

 

So... was he "asking" me nicely... or was he "telling" me??? Or does it even matter?  THIS is what he has been going on about the last year, calling me a liar, which is untrue.  

He's just mad that I outed his unsolicited PMs. 

 

 

[chatanga1]

11 minutes ago, Satkirin_Kaur said:

 

He's just mad that I outed his unsolicited PMs. 

@GurpreetKaur  Another lie to go with the big fat bundle of lies from Asatkiran. I had to practically beg her to post our conversation in the forum, but she wouldn't, so I had to do it myself. Then some months down the line after insisting I "told" her to leave, she finally admitted I "asked" her to leave. Challo, at least she managed to reveal the truth at some time.

Maybe there's some hope for her after all?

 

[CdnSikhGirl]

4 minutes ago, chatanga1 said:

@GurpreetKaur  Another lie to go with the big fat bundle of lies from Asatkiran. I had to practically beg her to post our conversation in the forum, but she wouldn't, so I had to do it myself. Then some months down the line after insisting I "told" her to leave, she finally admitted I "asked" her to leave. Challo, at least she managed to reveal the truth at some time.

Maybe there's some hope for her after all?

 

Point is, asking someone to leave is rude and inconsiderate... the language does not matter. The means by which you did it is the SAME AS TELLING. It had the same effect... making me feel like crap.  Which was unwarranted. Ok so you made a girl feel like crap and cry... CONGRATULATIONS! You are such a BIG man for that! Oh but it was not 'telling' sorry... you were what? Asking nicely??? 

Your point was to make me feel unequivocally unwelcome. Thats the same thing as telling me to leave.  And why do you keep putting an A in front of my alias? Is that how you respond to people? I should call you Achatanga1?