Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Passive ideology does not necessarily make for a passive state. Jainas have not had many major empires or dynasties in India but the Mahamegavahana dynasty & much later, the Rashtrakuta dynasties had several Jaina patrons & they were pretty war-like, especially the rashtrakutas. Its the Rashtrakutas who broke the power of the central Asian Iranic Gujjar-Pratihara power in India, not the arabs or Mehmoud of Ghazni. Hathigumpa records pretty strongly what a war-mongering militaristically successful emperor Kharavela was & he was a huge Jaina follower This post is BS and stupid. I want evidence for every single line of this post. It's not true unless you provide a strong evidence from historians for these BS claims. If you don't have evidence, then you are a liar and stupid. Now, don't tell me that you are a 20,000 year old caveman :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Iam NOT quoting the judge . Iam Quoting from THE ASI Experts deposition under oath. What part of that do you not understand ? :hysterical::hysterical: he'll continue the BS that judicial article is not archaelogicial evidence when judicial article was based on testimony of ASI experts, who analyzed archaeological evidence. Iss bimari ka koi ilaj hain? :(( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Hay boz' date=' I know you are reading somewhere, but my advise is to read that thing fully. Don't give some half-baked info. The ASI stands for Archaeological Survey of India, if u don't know. Every one here and the judge quoted the ASI report. [b']From your posts, it's obvious that you are too incompetent for making any argument. P.S: I guess u have taken a part of ur brain and pictured it in ur Avatar. :giggle: Right. You are quoting a court document as proof on an archeological issue. Why cant you folks quote the ASI report itself ? I am sorry but nomatter how many times you crib about it, quoting a judge or an ASI archeologist under oath or under gunpoint or any such thing is NOT proof on an archeological basis. Proof is an archeological report. Not a court discussion transcribed. Bloody hell ! A court document is now archeological proof ! And its me who doesnt know how to argue. :haha::haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Iam NOT quoting the judge . Iam Quoting from THE ASI Experts deposition under oath. What part of that do you not understand ? You are quoting a court document, written by a judge about the process. It is not an archeological proof of anything, as the court follows laws of legalese, not an archeological paper in itself. I dont care what the judge said under oath an archaeologist said under oath- they are still answering questions, not making a scientific report. The evidence lies in the scientific report, not a legal transcribed document, which i guess you havnt read yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 This post is BS and stupid. I want evidence for every single line of this post. It's not true unless you provide a strong evidence from historians for these BS claims. If you don't have evidence, then you are a liar and stupid. Now, don't tell me that you are a 20,000 year old caveman :finger: Why dont you just google Kharavela, the Rashtrakutas etc. and find out for yourself. Kharavela was a jaina and so were some of the Rashtrakuta emperors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 This post is BS and stupid. I want evidence for every single line of this post. It's not true unless you provide a strong evidence from historians for these BS claims. If you don't have evidence, then you are a liar and stupid. Now, don't tell me that you are a 20,000 year old caveman :finger: seeing his posts, I wouldn't be surprised if he is a 20000 year old caveman :secret: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 seeing his posts' date=' I wouldn't be surprised if he is a 20000 year old caveman :secret:[/quote'] maybe thats why he's interested in archaeology so much..... punar janam ki baatein hain yeh :giggle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Why dont you just google Kharavela' date=' the Rashtrakutas etc. and find out for yourself. Kharavela was a jaina and so were some of the Rashtrakuta emperors.[/quote'] Hence proved :bow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Hence proved :bow: LOL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoghavarsha#cite_ref-digam_17-0 There you go. Amoghavarsha. Just about the greatest monarch of early medeival India and most probably the longest ever reigning Indian monarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Right. You are quoting a court document as proof on an archeological issue. Why cant you folks quote the ASI report itself ? Did you read it? Or did u had a chance to read it? :giggle: throw us some light on what have you "learnt" from the report. I am sorry but nomatter how many times you crib about it, quoting a judge or an ASI archeologist under oath or under gunpoint or any such thing is NOT proof on an archeological basis. So you agree that we have quoted an ASI archeologist. Do u have proof for that bolded BS part? Proof is an archeological report. Not a court discussion transcribed. Bloody hell ! A court document is now archeological proof ! And its me who doesnt know how to argue. Well, even if we give a proof, stawmen like you will claim that it's written while pointing a gun. So no use of arguring with you endlessly. :haha::haha: he he he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 LOL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoghavarsha#cite_ref-digam_17-0 There you go. Amoghavarsha. Just about the greatest monarch of early medeival India and most probably the longest ever reigning Indian monarch. Now you agree that your "knowledge" come from reading wikipedia. Hence Proved :bow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Now you agree that your "knowledge" come from reading wikipedia. Hence Proved :bow: :cantstop: Although, i have to give credit to him for spending all that time reading those wikipedia articles.... time well spent :hatsoff: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Did you read it? Or did u had a chance to read it? :giggle: throw us some light on what have you "learnt" from the report. I learnt that the judge is not very clear on what are his conclusions and what are the depositions presented because he is continuously talking in 3rd person and failing to use proper referencing. So you agree that we have quoted an ASI archeologist. Do u have proof for that bolded BS part? Well, even if we give a proof, stawmen like you will claim that it's written while pointing a gun. So no use of arguring with you endlessly. he he he he Its not strawmen, its about integrity. Prove an archeological question with an archeological reference, not a legal one. Why is that so bloody hard for you to understand ? What the court says is legally binding. It doenst have to be archeologically binding. Seems like you think quoting a court paper is good enough- well newspapers quote politicians all the time too, doesnt make it a foreign affairs manifesto. Proper sources only. That is all i ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Now you agree that your "knowledge" come from reading wikipedia. Hence Proved :bow: No, i simply pulled up the first thing that google spat out and presented it to you. How the feck am i supposed to give you textbook reference online again ? As i said, read about Amoghavarsha- longest reigning Rashtrakuta monarch. he was a jain. and Rashtrakutas were extremely war like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Now you agree that your "knowledge" come from reading wikipedia. Hence Proved :bow: Don't know why people dish wikipedia. Wikipedia is reliable 99% of times. And surely much more reliable than posters on the new spewing whatever they think like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Don't know why people dish wikipedia. Wikipedia is reliable 99% of times. And surely much more reliable than posters on the new spewing whatever they think like I m not dishing wikis. The problem is that it leads to partial knowledge on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I learnt that the judge is not very clear on what are his conclusions and what are the depositions presented because he is continuously talking in 3rd person and failing to use proper referencing. Its not strawmen, its about integrity. Prove an archeological question with an archeological reference, not a legal one. Why is that so bloody hard for you to understand ? What the court says is legally binding. It doenst have to be archeologically binding. Seems like you think quoting a court paper is good enough- well newspapers quote politicians all the time too, doesnt make it a foreign affairs manifesto. Proper sources only. That is all i ask. So what's ur conclusion? The mosque wasn't built on a hindu religious building ? It's believed to be the birth place of Lord Rama, a Hindu God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adi B Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 mulo!! man u need a chick and chilled bears in ur life:cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crookbond Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 mulo!! man u need a chick and chilled bears in ur life:cantstop: You have a weird fetish. :headshake: Bears and that too chilled - polar bears probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSK Fan Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Chilled bears? Bears are always chill, until they decide to scratch your face off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts