[Reader-list] Fwd: FW: FW: Guests in Vedavati's house

[anuradha mukherjee]

Pawan, I don't acknowledge pseudo-secularists here. I am merely saying that
since most of her posts are peppered with references to "psuedo-secularists"
and rants against them, it appears she feels she is speaking to that
particular set identified by her (Not me) when she makes postings to the
Reader List. I personally have a problem with the term "psuedo secularists".
What does it mean? Either you are secular or you are not. It is thrown at
people as an insult like saying "you a feminist" if you feel a woman is too
assertive. So if you say a riot is very unfortunate and people should not be
killed and the person in question does not agree, you are a
psuedo-secularist. All I am saying is that such terminology is extremely
dangerous and we should think twice before using it.
Best
Anuradha


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pawan Durani <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
Date: Nov 3, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] FW: FW: Guests in Vedavati's house
To: anuradha mukherjee <anu.mukh at gmail.com>

Good ...atleast you do acknowledge Psuedo secularist.......I agree with most
of ur points ...though....


 On 11/3/07, anuradha mukherjee <anu.mukh at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Vedavati,
>
> I have been reading your posts for a long time. Without going into their
> merits or demerits, they seriously need to be structured better in order
> to
> say what you want to convey. Otherwise it is simply a rant. Rants are also
> valid, but this may not be the best forum for that. I suggest, start a
> blog.
> And may I also add that you don't ever say anything new. Not a new line of
>
> thought or even facts. You just go on repeating yourself.
>
> I have been a most invisible reader here, but you inspired me to write in.
> Continue the good work, but do at least make an effort to make what you
> write readable and therefore more easy to understand. Your scorn for
> "pseudo-secularists" is well-known, but since many of them are your
> readers,
> at least be legible. But I also find it funny that words like intellectual
>
> and pseudo-secularists are tossed about with such ease without even
> sparing
> a thought about their meaning or genesis. Almost every totalitarian regime
> or mindset that wanted to attack free-thinking has used such terms
> regardless which side of the fence they were on.
>
> The earth-shattering questions you ask can all be answered. But only
> somebody with immense patience can do it, take up your arguments
> point-wise
> and shred them. May be it is high time somebody should. But then what's
> the
> point, you don't ever listen to others, do you? Frankly, for most of us,
> it's not worth the effort. I agree with Inder when he says that you need
> to
> shape your debate better. Before you lump me with him and declare us a
> part
> of some "pseudo-secularist agenda" let me add that I may or may not agree
> with him on other things.
> Best
> Anuradha
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with
> subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>