I do not agree with the assertion that
Fred has slandered anyone in his post.
Slander is verbal; when it is written it is libel,
last I checked all email is written:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
therefore even technically speaking Fred
has not slandered anyone.
Quite frankly it is Fred's opinion, that is not
defamation. Your reputation is not damaged,
it stands for itself. Fred is entitled to his opinion
about you, and your writing as you are about him
and his writing. He has not damaged your
reputation. What reputation do you have?
As far as I can tell, none.
Wikipedia is an information resource; it is not
a soapbox; if you want to add information about
the links between India and the USSR the place to
do it is not on this discussion list. Do it in a factual
way and cite your primary sources.
You may rant all you want, but I do think you
are reading too much into Fred's comments.
If you are going to write on Wikipedia you had
better be prepared for people to criticize you.
I do not think you can tell Fred's race from his
name. My brother in law is named Alex like me,
and he is a Farsi, my roommate is named Sam
and he is Palestinian. My other brother in law
is named Bob and he is a hindu. I do not think
that you can tell someone's race from their name,
many Americans change there name so that it
is easy to pronounce; that is all, it is not some
white man's conspiracy; in this country we
actually have a form of multiculturalism that
works.
The fact is that people, be they hindus, muslims,
christians, jews, satanists, tree huggers or any
thing else are both good and bad (though I have never
met a tree hugger who was bad). You cannot tell
an individual's worth by their religious affiliation.
Making such generalizations really does not one
any good; it does not advance knowledge or
understanding. It perpetuates ignorance. Fred
was merely stating that your expressed views
seems that your writings had a Indian nationalist
POV with a fascist leading to your assertions.
Is calling Hilter a fascist defamation? No it is
a factually accurate statement. Everyone knows
that the nazi's were very close to many Indian
nationalists during WWII. I don't think that
Fred is stating anything really controversial
if he states that you have a fascist leaning
perspective. In fact some Indians would be
proud of that perspective, so maybe you could
explain how that might be defamation?
I am sorry you have such pain and anger. Perhaps
you should hug a tree, it might do you some good.
alex756
----- Original Message -----
From: "libertarian" <libertarian(a)myway.com>
To: <wikien-l(a)Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder's slander [was:India problems]
From: Fred Bauder [mailto: fredbaud(a)ctelco.net]
So it seems that LibertarianAnarchist, in fact,
is an advocate
of a Hindu Nationalist Point of View with a decidely fascist
tinge to his assertions.
This sort of statement is nothing but slander. My own political
leaning is towards a peaceful anarchy. I do not support any
political party.
However, the following are FACTS:
1) India is a democracy.
2) India's ruling coalition has a Hindu Prime Minister, a Christian
Defence Minister and the President is a Muslim who was the ruling
party's candidate.
3) India is a secular state and the issue is not between secularism
and Hindu theocracy. Those who are branded Hindu fascists are those
who question the following laws in India and want to abolish them.
(a) The Shariat is applicable in India and Muslim women are at the
mercy of Mullahs. This is supposedly to protect "Muslim culture."
The courts cannot rule in cases relating to Muslim women and there
was a case where the Mullahs decided to shave the head of a woman
seeking divorce.
(b) Muslims are allowed to run educational institutions and even
get Government funding and so Madrasas are funded. However, Hindus
are not allowed to run educational institutions!
(c) Haj trips to Mecca are subsidised. You know, fascism and all
that, there are people who want to remove this subsidy.
(d) The only Muslim majority state in India gets special rights!
All others are equal, but some are more equal. The special right
in this case is that Kashmiri Muslims can buy property anywhere in
India, while the other indians are banned from buying property in
Kashmir.
4) India was a socialist state and I am surprised that you do not
know this! It modelled itself after USSR complete with a planning
commission and public sector companies and private enterprise was
for all practical purposes banned until recently. You needed to get
a license to run a factory or start a company.
5) The Indian English language media *is* Communist. Search for
N.Ram who is the editor of 'The Hindu.' He called the agitation in
Tiananmen Square a "western inspired revachenist conspiracy by
counterrevolutionaries" and here are links to EDITORIALS which
appeared in Times of India.
I've given these two editorials because they appeared on the
same day! Two pro-Communist editorials on a single day. The
second one fondly desires that the two Communist parties
merge into one.
"Perhaps this is what Vladimir Lenin meant when
he referred to imperialism
being the highest stage of capitalism."
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=60…
Comrades All
Here is more stuff from Times of India:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/xml/uncomp/articleshow?art_id=10…
Capitalism is as flawed as other systems
"Lenin was logically consistent in refusing to allow freedom of choice in
either political or material goods."
6) VR Krishna Iyer quoted in the article was a Minister in the
Marxist Govt. This is a FACT. You can deny it for all you want.
7) Sabrang is a Communist organization. This is also a FACT.
8) When the initial firebombing happened, the editorials of the
Communist rags blamed the Hindus. If you are ignorant of this,
what am I supposed to do?
9) The article in question which now uses the words "apparently
Hindus" actually used the words "allegedly Hindus" until not so
long ago, but a few paragraphs below, it makes an ASSERTION that
they were Hindus who created trouble and hence the spontaneous
firebombing happened.
You see, except you and your whiteskinned race, the rest of us
are barbarians.
10) Travel across North India and you will see that not a single
Hindu temple older than 150 years exists which has not been smashed
by Muslim invaders.
11) Islam has been an aggressive religion. This is a FACT. It has
caused damage and misery. This is also a FACT. Hindus have not been
violent despite your best efforts to project Hindus that way. This
is also a FACT. Keep denying all you want. It wasn't the Hindus who
slammed planes into buildings killing thousands of people. You are
a bigoted person to brand Hindus who are one of the most peaceful
people as fascists. Shame on you.
Let me tell you why you wrote what you did. You are probably a
White skinned American who is brainwashed into believing that only
White Americans are peaceful people while all the rest are barbarians.
No wonder you guys supported Osama bin Laden without batting an
eyelid and consider it a sacred act of defending liberty even though
he was killing people in other countries.
Asking for factual accuracies is Hindu fascism? Since when is that?
Admit it, you didn't know that indian media is communist, that indian
media actually gloated when Hindus were firebombed and you blame
Hindus of whining.
Oh yes, white skins are here to save the world and any attack on
whites is an attack on liberty while evil Hindus will lob nuclear
missiles all over the world and therefore the world is a dangerous
place! After all, it was the evil Hindus who dropped atomic bombs
on Japan even though Japan was on the verge of surrender and the
Generals had said that it wasn't required.
I am sorry to say that such entries which carry propaganda and factual
inaccuracies not only show Wikipedia to be of poor quality but posts
such as Fred Bauder's are nothing short of racist.
If any indian political party of any indian acts against freedom,
trust me, I will be the first to oppose it. Instead, Fred Bauder has
indulged in mudslinging and a racist attack.
I have given references and proven that the media is indeed Marxist.
Why are you against going by verifiable information? I am truly
puzzled.
-a