animesh

No rest for the wicked, prabhu, but thanks for kind thoughts. RR

Who is wicked?

I am a 7th grade drop out and my brain is old.

Why did you drop out? Were you a very naughty student? Your brain is not only old but also experienced.

BTW: I will correct occasionally.

Anismesh is giving me lessons.I will try to be a good student.

So, let us begin.

I have not grandchildren nor sticks.

Correct form:

I have neither grandchildren nor sticks.

OK you damn grammer cops, I ain't takin' it no more.

You are not taking it no more. This means that you do want to take it some more.

Double negative ain't no nothing compared to what's coming.

Triple negative

Maybe I don't have no grammer skills ...

You don't have no grammar skills. This means that you do have some grammar skills. Nice to know.

Now where's my stick?

Do you also have grand children?

Hmmm,

so your grammar is bad but the knowledge of spelling is good. Good.

OK Talasiga, now what are you rolling your eyes about.

He was rolling his eyes over your usage of the word 'irregardless'.

Usually, the word 'regrdless' or the word 'irrespective' is used.

The word 'irregarless' is probably a blend of 'irrespective' and 'regardless'. Even though this word originated in American speech in the early 20th century, it still does not have general acceptance. English schollars do not like this word. I do not know the exact reason for this, but I think that the dislike for this word is because of the double negative in it. The prefix 'ir' is used for negative and the suffix 'less' is also used for negative. The word 'irregardless' has both of these.

It seems that using double negative has become a fashion now-a-days. What do you think about "I don't have no money?"

I just hate such kind of sentence.

I don't think it is correct to say that modern day mainstream scientists are stealing ideas from our scriptures. If it is believed that the stories written in Puranas are fictitious, then it is obviously wrong to say that modern day scientists have copied ideas from those. If it is believed that the stories are really true, then also we can not say that the scientists have copied ideas from these books. Just saying that we had knowledge of deadly weapons does not tell us how we can make these weapons at present. We need to know the process also. If the process is really mentioned in our ancient books, then one needs to have good knowledge of Sanskrit to utilise that. Are the scientists of today have that much knowledge of Sanskrit? Many claim that the weapons like Brahmastra, Agneyastra etc. can we invoked by those who have mastered the respective mantras. Have modern day scentists mastered these mantras?

And why is it that after scientists discover/invent something new, we say that we already new this? Why don't we say it earlier?

A speech usually starts with "ladies and gentle men".

Why don't they ever say "gentle ladies and gentle men"?

Is it impossible for a lady to be gentle?

But these type of technologies are being stolen from India's intelligence right now.

Scientists spend money, time and they struggle hard to invent something and then they are blamed to have stolen technologies from India. Is this justified?

Hmm, this means that anybody is neither young nor old (I must add, if soul and not body is considered).

Lord Krishna says in Gita,

"There was never a time when I did not exist or you or any of these kings. Also, in future, none of us will cease to exist."

According to this shloka I must be very-very old.

If you want, you can interprete Nostradamus's prophecies to mean anything. When there are bugs in the softwares developed by me, then he must have predicted those too.

If you want, you can interprete Nostradamus's prophecies to mean anything. When there are bugs in the softwares developed by me, then he must have predicted those too.

I use my stick for walking. You need stick for walking when you have grand children; so I need one.

Good Metereya ji.

I don't know geography either.And i received the same rebuked for mispelling Gandhi's [or is it Ghandi's name].I'm not sure which it is but our friend animesh will surely tell us.

Still you are not sure? It is "Gandhi". Let me get a stick and then I will teach you.

Dr. Melvin,

Just give me the prize. Otherwise, I will put a gun against your head and snatch the prize from you. There are lots of criminal records against me. My photograph is often published in newspapers under "most wanted".

Is it past midnight in your place? Here, it is day time. What are you doing so late in night? Don't want to go sleep?

The day begins where there is sun-rise.

"I just can't decide. Should I switch my career, goals, home, and hair color?"

You missed something. The complete sentence should read,

"I just can't decide. Should I switch my career, goals, home, hair color, and boy friend?"

Sirona ji,

You have talked about Arjun. He became eunuch because of curse from Urvashi. He did not become homosexual.

There are many Hindu scriptures which I have not read. So, I am not in a position to say if homosexuals are glorified or condemned in these scriptures. But, there is a difference between hating them and saying that they are condemned by scriptures. If scriptures say that they are to be condemned and somebody wants to glorify them, then he has got every right to do so, but he should not say that he has got sanction from scriptures. If scriptures do not condemn them and some body wants to condemn, then he also should not say that he has got backing of scriptures.

As an example, I can not start a sentence with "Einstein said that..." and then say something which was opposed by Einstein.

Ramayana is a shastra. But it is also an epic. So, accuracy is definitely important.

It is true that neither believers nor non-believers will be affected by inaccuracies in movies. But what about those who are neither? Example: What about children?

Bhakta Shakta responds to Bhakta Shakta's post after just two minutes.

I have not watched the movie "Lajja". I just do not feel like watching movies unless there is a historical movie.

You have written that Sita has been shown talking badly to Rama. I feel that this is really objectionable. I find it objectionable not because Muslims will not tolerate any scene which is insulting to their religion. Even if Muslims say that they will not take offence if Islam is shown in bad light, then also Hindus should take offence against such kind of scenes. I think think of many reasons as to why I consider such scenes as objectionable. Let me enumerate the ones that immediately come to mind: -

1. Against religious sentiments: Very often, film makers make excuses that they had no intention of hurting anybody's sentiments. This kind of excuse is a complete lie because it is very easy to understand that Hindus will consider such scenes as objectionable.

2. Inaccurate: The defendors of the movie can say, "Why should we believe what others believe? We do not believe that the stories written in Ramayana are true. So, there is no inaccuracy if we show anything against Ramayana." My point is that, even if the stories are considered to be nothing more than mythologies, it is inaccurate to show scenes against Ramayana. When we talk about Rama, Sita, Hanuman etc., then Valmiki Ramayana is considered to be authority. So, one has to judge the scene in the film by comparing it with Valmiki Ramayana. In that sense, it is inacuurate. As an example, if it is shown in some film that Moses promised to take his followers to the "land of God" and took them to Paris, then one can not say, "I do not beleieve in Old Testament". Irrespective of whether the story is true or not, the Old Testament is an authority in this matter.

3. Effect on viewers (esp. children): Now a days, people learn many things from movies and TV serials. There are many Indians who learn History from these sources rather than from History books. May be because they do not find reading of books as interesting. Not all Hindus have read Ramayana or Ramacaritmanas. If they see the movie, they may start thinking that Sita had really fought Rama. This is especially bad for children because it is very difficult to unlearn wrong things that one has learnt in one's childhood days.

(I mentioned about reading of books. I feel that children should be made to cultivate the habit of reading books. These could be books on any topic based on their interest, not necessarily History books. I will not write on this because this is off-topic).

Jijaji,

Don't you think that the analysis was carried out by not considering that 1 celestial year = 360 earth years?