From: Kalkor (kalkor@kalkor.com)
Date: Mon Jan 07 2002 - 14:53:49 MST
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]On Behalf
Of Mermaid .
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:19 AM
To: virus@lucifer.com
Subject: virus: Kalkor: some thoughts and a response.
[Kalkor]After watching this thread for a while, I get the impression that
Mermaid is discussing the mnemonic values of the mathematical instruction
contained in the vedas... whereas Hermit and Kirk are debating the validity
or even existence (verifiable) of some sort of mystic pattern in the vedas?
Is this not a guava vs corn arguement?
[Mermaid]I have never heard of Vedic Mathematics before this thread began. I
do not have any claim. I ventured out to find any sources I could find and I
published them ALL in my replies to back up my opinion why its mnemonic and
not some sort of mystical mumbo jumbo. When I say why I believe its
Mneumonic, Hermit or anyone else who is questiong my decision KNOWS how I
came to that decision. They know where to go and check for counter argument
because I have published along with my responses all the online references I
could find.
[Kalkor2]"is discussing" rather than "claiming". I've been reading your
posts, not just assuming ;-}
I've sort of started skipping over the posts as soon as I encounter
profanity or name calling or "PsychoBitch"...
Makes the reading much more enjoyable, and I haven't had to skip a post by
you once!
[Mermaid]Hermit, on the other hand, has read 'a bit' of the 'sylabbus' of
MUM. We dont know which part, what pages, what content etc. We dont know WHY
he believes its on the same line as the Bible Code or the Moby Dick Code. I
do not purchase second hand knowledge and conclusions.
[Mermaid]As far as Kirk is concerned, he has obviously fallen hook, line and
sinker to Hermit's dishonest debating tactics directed at Yash and more
recently at me. As far as I read it, Hermit only really meant that the Vedic
Code lets the person believe what he wants to believe like the Bible Code.
But he mentions it only once. In the subsequent discussions, he combines the
book with religion to give the impression that it is a pseudo religious
scientific piece of garbage. In a group which is predominantly atheistic and
anti-belief, defining something on religious line will instantly attract
negative reviews. But with his rather skilful manipulation of words he has
gotten Kirk to believe that this is a steganography issue. I do not know if
its Kirk's deficiency or if its Hermit's malice.
[Kalkor]I have yet to see any point-counterpoint embedded within the
flameage ;-} you're argueing separate issues, missing each others' points
entirely, but unable to step back and say "is that person disagreeing or
digressing?"
[Kalkor2]after watching a bit longer, I'd like to revise what I said in the
above paragraph to read, "I have yet to see any on-target point-counterpoint
in the flameage ;-} One of you is trying to discuss and research a subject,
while the other is lambasting and debunking something entirely different.
The debunker has descended to using tactics which make me want to skip the
entire post. So I do, and have, and all is right with the world ;-}"
<snippy snip snip>
[Mermaid]I have to step back at this point of time and ask myself why and
what am I doing by continuing to give validation to his words. And I have
nothing more to say.
[Kalkor2]Good choice!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:38 MDT