Jump to content

How can we educate sikhs who go to hindu mandirs ? ... How about using reverse psychology ?


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Kira said:

I think you need spectacles, do you notice the words "first page" there. That's in references to first page of the thread, to which I linked a comment where he agreed with it. OP= Original Poster in this, so let me further simply that sentence and add in a bit more words for the more dim-witted.

 

On the first page of the thread the Original Poster said visiting was fine in his books, to prove this I linked a comment where he agreed with the statement. 

 

You asked for the distinction and I gave you a fully dissected post from it, honestly it isn't my fault you're hellbent on trying to have the moral high ground here. He made distinctions within his post, a child could see that. Yet Mr "30 years as a Sikh scholar" seems to have trouble understanding the most basic linguistics behind it. 

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kira said:

I'm hardly getting worked up, he made it abundantly clear. The only one hellbent on saying he didn't is you. You tried to assert he was misquoting Gurbani out of context, which he wasn't. I pointed that out and you still can't be arsed answering around that. 

also in this context the word used should be their not there. 

 

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

Well I apologise.. 

My original post was made in reference to and in reply to the original post.. 

You have attacked me over something I have not done. A false accusation. 

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

I'm sorry but I didn't accuse him of misquoting. I asked him how given Sikh philosophy he could possibly defend the position he articulated in that post. 

And I didn't accuse him, if you examine the language I employed I said people who take Gurbani out of context 

I did examine the language, that was a subtle dig at him as he was deploying Gurbani. In the exact right context as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kira said:

eh no, you made it against OP (original poster), if you hadn't been lazy and read all the responses (there were like 30 in total) you would have seen his comments in a different context as he expands further into it all. Next time read the full thread before throwing yourself into it, it's not exactly a colossal task.

So btw can you show me where on the first page of the thread he says it's OK? 

I've just gone through it very quickly and can't find anything to support your interpretation 

Please show me 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

So btw can you show me where on the first page of the thread he says it's OK? 

I've just gone through it very quickly and can't find anything to support your interpretation 

Please show me 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kira said:

on the very first page OP said visiting is fine in his books. He also says and here's the quotes

That's what you wrote. 

But now we have established he didn't say visiting is fine he responded to anothers post which said that amongst other things. So he didn't say that 

you're basing your whole challenge to me  and justifying it by using this reference.. 

I say again I challenged something very specific. 

You seem to conflating the whole thing 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

That's what you wrote. 

But now we have established he didn't say visiting is fine he responded to anothers post which said that amongst other things. So he didn't say that 

you're basing your whole challenge to me  and justifying it by using this reference.. 

I say again I challenged something very specific. 

You seem to conflating the whole thing 

 

He responded to another post by agreeing to it  Why is that so hard for you to understand? I've yet to hear of someone agreeing to a post but only partially without pointing out where they disagree. I'm really not conflating anything. Right now you're the one trying to heap onto him that allusion, anyone with half a brain could see what he meant. This isn't even a challenge, it's common sense and comprehension. Something you seem to sorely lack right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kira said:

He responded to another post by agreeing to it  Why is that so hard for you to understand?

To be pedantic he doesn't agree he says "well said". Which isn't particularly specific and definitely not what you were suggesting and now by your own example is incorrect.. 

He didn't say it was OK in his book. Somebody else did and he said "well said". Not the same thing I'm afraid 

You shouldn't put words into people's mouths 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Sukhvirk1976 said:

To be pedantic he doesn't agree he says "well said". Which isn't particularly specific and definitely not what you were suggesting and now by your own example is incorrect.. 

He didn't say it was OK in his book. Somebody else did and he said "well said". Not the same thing I'm afraid 

You shouldn't put words into people's mouths 

Grasping at straws now. Well said is synonymous with "I agree"

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/well_said

the sheer idiocy of the fact you're attempting to use this arguement is just beyond amusing for someone who enjoys "issuing challenges" 

 

hate to break it to you sunshine but "well said" = approval and acceptance. If the above link isn't enough then please consult an English professor. While you talk to him about this maybe also ask him to give you a refresher course on properly contextualising things.

 

heres another definition of the phrase "well said" also professing the same things I said.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Well+said

oxford links as well

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/well_3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use