TBH- what is happening to the women?

[californiasardar1]

17 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

She is not promoting sikhi.  But misrepresenting sikhs.  She is perverted.  She is using outrageous acts as a way to get attention.  If she was graviting toward sikhi then she would not be half naked tying a dastar in a photo.  She does not say that she made a mistake.  She fully believes what she is doing as correct and according to sikhi.  

 

 

I did not say she is promoting Sikhi.

Maybe she is misrepresenting Sikhs, but how many of us fully and properly represent Sikhs?  Very few.  All I am saying is that whatever nominal allegiance she has towards Sikhi, it is better than nothing.  Criticizing people like that usually just results in them moving even further away from Sikhi.  It's like seeing sardars drinking.  Are they properly representing Sikhi?  No.  But I would rather have a drinking sardar, with whatever nominal allegiance he openly has towards Sikhi, than a drinking mona.  At least with a drinking sardar, our tiny community gets small contribution to our nominal numbers.  I'm tired of people arguing for "quality over quantity".  For some things, we need more than a tiny, tiny minority.  We need to have a large, visible population of nominal adherents.

 

[californiasardar1]

16 hours ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

Why do people always have to include such feedbacks? 

what makes one think that we are perfect? Why can't a person simply comment on the doings of another? 

If you this is sikhi-congragulations. She is well promoting it. These women on social media are the reason why people view sikhi so lightly. 

Brainwashed much.

 

I don't think it is Sikhi.  But if only the people who fully and properly represent Sikhs were to remain as visible (keshadhari, dastar-wearing) Sikhs, our numbers would dwindle to what -- 100?  200?

 

It is helpful to have people in the fold who may not live the way we like but can still be counted as nominally belonging to our community.  Numbers matter.

[Akalifauj]

16 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I did not say she is promoting Sikhi.

Maybe she is misrepresenting Sikhs, but how many of us fully and properly represent Sikhs?  Very few.  All I am saying is that whatever nominal allegiance she has towards Sikhi, it is better than nothing.  Criticizing people like that usually just results in them moving even further away from Sikhi.  It's like seeing sardars drinking.  Are they properly representing Sikhi?  No.  But I would rather have a drinking sardar, with whatever nominal allegiance he openly has towards Sikhi, than a drinking mona.  At least with a drinking sardar, our tiny community gets small contribution to our nominal numbers.  I'm tired of people arguing for "quality over quantity".  For some things, we need more than a tiny, tiny minority.  We need to have a large, visible population of nominal adherents.

 

She is outright misrepresenting sikhs.  You are telling everyone to not present her wrong doings because it favors you as a homosexual who wants to indulge in your homosexual behavior.  What is wrong will be said as wrong no matter who does it.  She is openly not admitting her wrong doing.  At least the guy drinking will admit he is wrong.  She does not admit she is wrong. Can you not understand the root of the problem being this?

[californiasardar1]

9 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

She is outright misrepresenting sikhs.  You are telling everyone to not present her wrong doings because it favors you as a homosexual who wants to indulge in your homosexual behavior.  What is wrong will be said as wrong no matter who does it.  She is openly not admitting her wrong doing.  At least the guy drinking will admit he is wrong.  She does not admit she is wrong. Can you not understand the root of the problem being this?

 

Homosexual?  Are you calling me a homosexual?

[MOD]

18 hours ago, Akalifauj said:

Thank you for apologizing.  Anoop caur has a photo with her top off and she is tying a dastar.  She may have deleted it off of her Instagram but many people still have the picture.  Here it is

 

 

Don't repost this image on this website again please. Both inappropriate and looks like the owner of it  had previously deleted it and thus wouldn't want it posted publicly.

Keep discussions civil.

[Akalifauj]

Just now, MOD said:

Don't repost this image on this website again please. Both inappropriate and looks like the owner of it  had previously deleted it and thus wouldn't want it posted publicly.

Keep discussions civil.

I was not posting the picture, until a member decided to say I had a dirty mind to think anoop caur would do such a thing.  I asked her to apology.  She stuck to her original insult.  Look at the timeline.  Couple of hours pasted before I posted the picture of anoop caur tying her dastar with her top off.  I posted that picture to say, I was not lying about what anoop caur is doing on social media sites.  Plain and simple.  If I was being malicious, in my first post I would have posted the pic.

Whether anoop caur likes that picture being posted anywhere should have been her first concern when taking the picture.  I say let that picture go throughout the Sikh sangat and the wider world, so she gets a taste of her own medicine.  She wants to disgrace Sikhi with her "art".  Well, it's karma now playing its role.  I don't go out of my way posting that picture, but since she wants it hidden.  Well, that's not going to happen. 

Discussions are civil till someone tells another you have a dirty mind.  Plus me and her have resolved the issue of the name calling.  You didn't need to get involved.  However poster dolly was on a tirade, yet you never came out to correct his behaviour.  Can you explain why?  We are all brothers and sisters, you are not higher and neither am I higher than you.  When asked for an explanation, it's best to give one as a brother or sister and not think you are higher than me and you don't need to provide one.  Look above, I provided an explanation.   

[Khalistanisinghni]

1 hour ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

I don't think it is Sikhi.  But if only the people who fully and properly represent Sikhs were to remain as visible (keshadhari, dastar-wearing) Sikhs, our numbers would dwindle to what -- 100?  200?

 

It is helpful to have people in the fold who may not live the way we like but can still be counted as nominally belonging to our community.  Numbers matter.

3HO members have been doing that, haven't they? They are posting videos online and mixing Sikhi up with Hinduism. They are in massive numbers and are just getting more popular- but this means they are using sikhi for their own means. They are not representing Sikhi, or true gursikhs. Alcoholics "Sardars" aren't representing sikhi either, people keep mixing us up. We are greeted with balle balle and burraaaahs because of them, imagine how would that feel when you are going to gurdwara or coming from work, doing some jaap.

quantity, there is 96 Crore khalsa, neither does guru ji nor the panth need these extras misinterpretating sikhi

[californiasardar1]

30 minutes ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

3HO members have been doing that, haven't they? They are posting videos online and mixing Sikhi up with Hinduism. They are in massive numbers and are just getting more popular- but this means they are using sikhi for their own means. They are not representing Sikhi, or true gursikhs. Alcoholics "Sardars" aren't representing sikhi either, people keep mixing us up. We are greeted with balle balle and burraaaahs because of them, imagine how would that feel when you are going to gurdwara or coming from work, doing some jaap.

quantity, there is 96 Crore khalsa, neither does guru ji nor the panth need these extras misinterpretating sikhi

 

96 crore?  1 crore = 10 million, so 96 crore = 960 million

Are you asserting that there are 960 million amritdhari Sikhs?  That is beyond ridiculous.

[Khalistanisinghni]

13 minutes ago, californiasardar1 said:

 

96 crore?  1 crore = 10 million, so 96 crore = 960 million

Are you asserting that there are 960 million amritdhari Sikhs?  That is beyond ridiculous.

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Shaheed_Singhs

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon]

6 hours ago, Khalistanisinghni said:

http://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Shaheed_Singhs

I'm sure even if we count every single Sikh that ever lived, we still would be no where near 960 million lol.