Swing_n_Speed Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 Err being better preserved with more details available is the very definition of having a better history. By having a better history does not mean they were 'better than us in their lifestyle'' date=' it means their history is more documented, as a subject it is way better because it is way more evidenced and tabulated. [b']Having a million and one inscriptions and historical accounts over the last 2000 years over (say for example sub saharan africa) some oral traditions and legends does make for a better history. :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 So you are saying that ASI is an incompetent organization that does not know the difference between Palace' date=' Whoarhouse and a Temple ... something that you can so easily do sitting in Canada/US without ever having been part of the team that dug up the site ?[/quote'] I am saying that ASI never claimed that it is a temple, it said that the building we are talking about had some features common to north Indian temples. ASI paper cited makes that clear. Nowhere in the ASI report did it specifically claim the structure to be a temple. Its you who is filling in the blanks and taking 'shared features common to a temple' to equate as a temple. Based on what ASI has stated, its likely that it was a temple. But its not for sure. It could've been a palace, a whoarhouse, a daaru adda or who the feck knows what else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 16, 2013 Share Posted July 16, 2013 lol at the usual secular sher suggesting that : "so what if the mosque was built by destroying a temple ... once a mosque always a mosque " :hysterical: Well done :nice: I am consistent. My perspective is, whats done is done and whats been prevailing for centuries, should prevail. I am anti demolition of Babri Masjid because it could've been a hindu temple site 500+ years ago. I am also anti demolition of Jagganath shrine because it used to be a Buddhist Vihara prior to its appropriation by the Hindus. Same for Jain temples turned Shaiva temples in Kerala. You on the other hand, is not consistent. You want some sort of historical status quo returned but only for the Hindus. Bhaar me jaaye the jains ro the Buddhists who had their stuff appropriated by Hindus. That is not fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 The ASI report clearly states (in their own words not something that I filled in ) that the remains found are distinctive features associated with Temples. And they say this repeatedly. It is based on their recommendation that the judges also issued a ruling on one of the main suits in this case OOS 4 The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs U.P.& Others Vs. Gopal Singh Visharad (defendant) here is the link : http://elegalix.allahabadhighcourt.in/elegalix/ayodhyafiles/hondvsj-gist-vol2.pdf tidbit : thats as cut and dry as it gets. As i said, cut and dry in court language perhaps, but not so cut and dried from a purely historical POV. You are correct. ASI has repeatedly said that the features found are commonly found in North Indian temples of that era. But nowhere have they claimed it to be actually a temple. Read carefully: ASI has nowhere stated the remains are definitive of a temple complex. As i said, the remains are likely a temple. Heck, the part of the site itself might've been an actual temple ( ie, assuming it was a dwelling of any other type, something this big probably had a shrine in it). But nowhere has ASI claimed it definitevely a temple and they won't do so because there are many complexes that fit the criteria. As i said, technically speaking there are parts of Chittor fort that are temples, that does not make it the primary function of the building. that was not aimed at you :giggle: but Lets see a post where I said this . You havnt stated this, but this is the implication of your POV: why should hindus then not return the few remaining jain/buddhist shrines that are now converted temples back to them, if they are going to demolish something muslim on what is allegedly their holy site ? So heck, if you think that tomorrow a bunch of jains and buddhists could (if they did) want their temples back then the Hindus should move over and hand those temples over, then fine, I withdaw my claims of your double standards. But for this to apply, you have to directly acknowledge this paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 No YOU need to read the report and judgement clearly. I have. Nowhere does ASI report state that it is definitely a temple. The court asked ASI to figure out if the mosque was built on top of a temple. The ASI report says Yes. The court made a ruling citing the ASI report as a basis. If the ASI report is indeterminate as you claim .... They would have said "we are not sure if it was a temple or a palace or a woarhouse". There is no ambiguity at all nor is there any mention of anything other than a Temple in their report. You can keep playing your pedantry here. Pretty soon you will claim to be a be better expert than ASI. They stated that the site has resemblances to a temple. They did not state it to be a temple. It isnt about pedantry, its aboutbeing definite. Absolutely. Dont think there are any temples that were built on top of Buddhist/Jain temples nor is there any litigation ongoing that I know of. Yes, hinduvta types know very little outside of their brainwashings. Most avg joes dont even consider Buddhism and Jainism to be separate religions. BS. Every single jain and buddhist consider them to be different. What hindus think is largely besides the point here. For the record I wish the entire world got converted to Jainism somehow. The world would be a very peacefull place. Yep. Though i cannot give up ginger and garlic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 I have. Nowhere does ASI report state that it is definitely a temple. They stated that the site has resemblances to a temple. They did not state it to be a temple. It isnt about pedantry, its aboutbeing definite. Yes, hinduvta types know very little outside of their brainwashings. BS. Every single jain and buddhist consider them to be different. What ignorant illterate hindus think is largely besides the point here. Yep. Though i cannot give up ginger and garlic. so you know what every single jain and buddhist thinks? :hehe: Bullshyte has no limits. :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zubinpepsi Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Yes, hinduvta types know very little outside of their brainwashings. BS. Every single jain and buddhist consider them to be different. What ignorant illterate hindus think is largely besides the point here. Mr.Know-it-all, why dont you list those temples that are built on jainism,buddhim worship places..?? I am seriously interested to know.. I am asking this since you claimed so.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 mulo is anti hindu,communal :protest: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 so you know what every single jain and buddhist thinks? :hehe: Bullshyte has no limits. :hatsoff: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole hyperbole an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.†Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole baba muloghonto thinks that everything he writes is the gospel truth, even if its "extravagant" :secret: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 mulo is anti hindu' date='communal :protest:[/quote'] :poink: he's an agnost. he doesnt have time for religion, unless he sees a thread where there is potential to mock religion all he wants :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 :poink: he's an agnost. he doesnt have time for religion' date=' unless he sees a thread where there is potential to mock religion all he wants :winky:[/quote'] but have to give credit for his tenacity :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's not good to allow somebody make so many nasty comments about Hindutwa or Hindus... If these comments would've been made against any other religion, this thread would've got locked long time back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's not good to allow somebody make so many nasty comments about Hindutwa or Hindus... If these comments would've been made against any other religion' date=' this thread would've got locked long time back.[/quote'] BS. Far worse have been said by many-including me- about a certain religion that prefers a monochromatic tone that is between blue and yellow in the spectrum before thread got locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Bars where people are too drunk and pushing past each other, occasional tempers flaring, too many kids trying to pick up MILFs and each other, the occasional fistfights, etc. Kingston bars are very cliche- they are almost hollywood-esque in the fact that they tend to be dingy, not well lit, dont care much for smoking indoors or outdoors ( though my info is dated to 15+ years ago), the occasional guy making a pass at your woman & insulting your manhood, the occasional beer-bellied redneck local trying to win a fistfight with the out of town student on hormone overdrives, etc. Basically, have a thick skin and Kingston will be a hoot. Its just one of those places where if you get called a '****in heendooo', looking back and saying 'je nau pa pa Francais' will get a bellyroar and 'you aint half bad kiddo' backpats instead of the typical 'bull seeing red' response. That looks like a scene from American Pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 BS. Every single jain and buddhist consider them to be different. What ignorant illterate hindus think is largely besides the point here. too much generalization. I m reporting this post. :orderorder: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laaloo Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's not good to allow somebody make so many nasty comments about Hindutwa or Hindus... If these comments would've been made against any other religion' date=' this thread would've got locked long time back.[/quote'] It's fine. I mean there are far worse things said about Hinduism than on a Internet Cricket Board. It won't make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 BS. Far worse have been said by many-including me- about a certain religion that prefers a monochromatic tone that is between blue and yellow in the spectrum before thread got locked. Most of ur posts never made any sense. And what's blue and yellow spectrum?? :WTF: Don't look through the glass u just boozed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asterix Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 It's fine. I mean there are far worse things said about Hinduism than on a Internet Cricket Board. It won't make a difference. I know. Doesn't makes any difference to us. I'm proud to be a Hindu and a Bengali... I was only talking from the Moderation POV... :icflove: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 17, 2013 Share Posted July 17, 2013 Most of ur posts never made any sense. And what's blue and yellow spectrum?? :WTF: Don't look through the glass u just boozed. i will give you a hint : rainbows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts