Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Dear Balaji/Rohiniji I am a new entrant in this group, but found the war of words rather hot. It was I think Mr Rohini with his off-the-cuff remarks laced with srcasm that led to this war. Mr Balaji is right, I am yet to see Mr Rohini do a single act of service on this group (I can say for last 2 months only). Mr Balaji is far more helpful, I see at least two readings every day from him. His analysis is also very accurate-he studied my son's chart. It was so accurate that I shall remain eternally grateful to him. However a word of advice Never wrestle a ... Win or lose, you get dirty. Hope this war ends. Ashutosh Balaji Narasimhan <sherlockbalaji wrote: Rohini ji, Your argument reminds me of a Texas steer - a point here, a point there, and a lot of bull in between. Your experience is grand, but, if I may speak for myself, I regret that, your fevered ramblings over a period of months have failed to throw lucidity on Jyotish. I feel that there is far greater value in the postings of Tanvir ji, Inder ji, etc, who have a deep desire to help people in distress. You are grandiloquent, grandiose, verbose, and loquacious, but what was the last time you studied anybody's chart, and offered some solace? You live in an ivory tower and descend, like a swooping vulture, and go back to your vapid perch with a smug grin. This hardly helps anybody! Learn to help people out. People who come here may do so for free postings, but I respect the dignity of their difficulties far more than I sympathize with your ridiculous attitude. Read the Vishnu Sahasra Namam, and you will find that one of Vishnu's names is "Duratikrama," which means one feared by the Gods. The Kathopanishad says that out of fear of Him, the sun rises and the fire burns. My idea of attributing 80% to God was due to respect to Him as the Prime Mover of the Universe. I couldn't give two hoots if it hurt your Good Self. You don't believe, well, go to purgatory. You, I think, are the only person who will reply to his own mail! If you feel that you are so grand and mighty, who not try and analyze my friend Sudheendra's chart? He told me that, prior to joining this group, many astrologers, who like you arrogantly believed in their grand "techniques," were stumped. Let's see how you fare - of course, if, that is, with deep disdain and a considerable effort at self-effacement, you condescend to step down from your lofty perch and agree to do a "free" reading. Sheesh! One would think that, given your attitude towards free readings, the mere act of doing so would possibly blast a man's soul! Enough of your verbal diarrhea sir! Let your actions do the speaking just once! ===== Balaji Narasimhan * http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs Editor, The Partial Art of Detection ===== _______________________________ Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. http://promotions./goldrush ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ / Ashutosh Gangal Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Shri Ashutosh: Please tell me me. Why was this so offensive? Perceived as sarcastic?? And, why was it taken so personally??? ************************ Message #9612 on Jyotish_remedies "rohiniranjan" <rrgb@s...> Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:45 pm percentages of natural selection! was Re: Vineet ji... If this is true, that 80% is destined, deity governed and in other words, natural selection=based then the warnings given by sages in classics about not teaching astrology to many or spriritually undeveloped students would not have been sounded. If they knew what they were talking about in this matter, it would mean that the technical part of astrology (10% by your estimation) would have to be a lot more important than 10%. Percentages like this have been bandied about by many astrologers. One famous contemporary giant quoted a value of 82% for the success rate of predictions without indicating if this was based on a study or empirical observation of actual prediction by many jyotishis, etc. This kind of 'number/percentage'-dropping can be misleading unless accompanied by supporting data (1600 jyotishis were followed and 82% of their predictions regarding marriage were found to come to pass... etc). Please do not take it personally but just as a cautionary note that should raise questions. If jyotish is science its technical part should have a more than 10% contribution. And if it is 80% something else, then why do we continue to call it science, exact or even inexact? RR , Ashutosh Gangal <ashutosh_gangal> wrote: > Dear Balaji/Rohiniji > > I am a new entrant in this group, but found the war of words rather hot. It was I think Mr Rohini with his off-the-cuff remarks laced with srcasm that led to this war. Mr Balaji is right, I am yet to see Mr Rohini do a single act of service on this group (I can say for last 2 months only). Mr Balaji is far more helpful, I see at least two readings every day from him. > His analysis is also very accurate-he studied my son's chart. It was so accurate that I shall remain eternally grateful to him. > > However a word of advice Never wrestle a ... Win or lose, you get dirty. > > Hope this war ends. > > Ashutosh > > Balaji Narasimhan <sherlockbalaji> wrote: > Rohini ji, > > Your argument reminds me of a Texas steer - a point here, a > point there, and a lot of bull in between. > > Your experience is grand, but, if I may speak for myself, I > regret that, your fevered ramblings over a period of months have > failed to throw lucidity on Jyotish. I feel that there is far > greater value in the postings of Tanvir ji, Inder ji, etc, who > have a deep desire to help people in distress. > > You are grandiloquent, grandiose, verbose, and loquacious, but > what was the last time you studied anybody's chart, and offered > some solace? You live in an ivory tower and descend, like a > swooping vulture, and go back to your vapid perch with a smug > grin. This hardly helps anybody! > > Learn to help people out. People who come here may do so for > free postings, but I respect the dignity of their difficulties > far more than I sympathize with your ridiculous attitude. > > Read the Vishnu Sahasra Namam, and you will find that one of > Vishnu's names is "Duratikrama," which means one feared by the > Gods. The Kathopanishad says that out of fear of Him, the sun > rises and the fire burns. My idea of attributing 80% to God was > due to respect to Him as the Prime Mover of the Universe. I > couldn't give two hoots if it hurt your Good Self. You don't > believe, well, go to purgatory. > > You, I think, are the only person who will reply to his own > mail! If you feel that you are so grand and mighty, who not try > and analyze my friend Sudheendra's chart? He told me that, prior > to joining this group, many astrologers, who like you arrogantly > believed in their grand "techniques," were stumped. Let's see > how you fare - of course, if, that is, with deep disdain and a > considerable effort at self-effacement, you condescend to step > down from your lofty perch and agree to do a "free" reading. > Sheesh! One would think that, given your attitude towards free > readings, the mere act of doing so would possibly blast a man's > soul! > > Enough of your verbal diarrhea sir! Let your actions do the > speaking just once! > > > > ===== > Balaji Narasimhan * http://www.sherlock-holmes.com/balaji.htm > Author, Sherlock Holmes: Solutions from the Sussex Downs > Editor, The Partial Art of Detection > ===== > > > > _______________________________ > > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. > http://promotions./goldrush > > > ~! LIFE MEANS STRUGGLE, THE FITTEST WINS SURVIVAL !~ > > > Sponsor > > > > Links > > > / > > > > > Terms of Service. > > > > Ashutosh Gangal > > > > Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Enter now. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 I think the problem is a common one that happens in newsgroups, disembodied messages get interpreted just on the basis of the text, and not motives. I will try to show below what is wrong with your post. Think of your text as representing a person. > If this is true, that 80% is destined, deity governed and in other > words, natural selection=based then the warnings given by sages in > classics about not teaching astrology to many or spriritually > undeveloped students would not have been sounded. Too verbose, long, and unnecessarily flamboyant. Wrong language "register" to use in this group. Takes a long time to parse, raises irritation levels of ordinary people. Taken as a person, this paragraph gives the impression of someone who says high-faluting words and sentences to impress people. If they knew what > they were talking about in this matter, Unnecessary skepticism, gives the impression of an overcritical, even condescending, person. The bracketed comment below (on his estimate) has the same effect. >it would mean that the > technical part of astrology (10% by your estimation) would have to > be a lot more important than 10%. > Percentages like this have been bandied about by many astrologers. > One famous contemporary giant Sarcasm, particularly the comment about the giant. Gives the impression of a smirking person. >quoted a value of 82% for the success > rate of predictions without indicating if this was based on a study > or empirical observation of actual prediction by many jyotishis, > etc. This kind of 'number/percentage'-dropping can be misleading > unless accompanied by supporting data (1600 jyotishis were followed > and 82% of their predictions regarding marriage were found to come > to pass... etc). Good point, badly put, to the wrong audience. Most people here don't care about scientific principles and validity, they just want to know predictions, or know more about how to make them; they want equations. > Please do not take it personally but just as a cautionary note that > should raise questions. If jyotish is science its technical part > should have a more than 10% contribution. And if it is 80% something > else, then why do we continue to call it science, exact or even > inexact? You are preaching scepticism in an evangelist church, and that too with an attitude. I am not surprised by the response. I agree with the general observation made that you swoop down from the heights to pick out a mistake, make general comments, and then vanish. But I can see (now) that that could be your style, you may be more interested in general principles and only want to correct such things, but that is unhelpful to most people here. Combined with your style of writing, that focus makes for a very flammable combination. And you get flamed. In case you are interested, here's what you could do: When you make comments about general principles, make them in a more concrete way, give a chart configuration, explain why you think it should lead to effect X, and how your interpretation contradicts the claim made. And try doing that without a lot of flourish. That way, everyone gains. You as a teacher, and the group as students. Note that the recommendation is just a capsule version of your own constant harping, about dealing with real charts and real situations! :-) Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 Hello dear friend, Good to see that your cold is getting better ;-) I am not here as a teacher but as a participant. If someone views me as a teacher and I fall off his or her pedestal, is it my doing or problem? Hence the language rules that you elaborated upon do not apply to me. I say what comes to me but say it without drama and without manipulation. If I had an ulterior motive I would make an effort and couch my statements in a more diplomatic language but I don't! I am not here eithr to encroach upon anyone's real or imagined territories as well. I view this and similar astrological forums of exchange as just that - civilized, fact-based exchange with a slight degree of maturity. Just as would happen in a face to face encounter, meeting of a group or conference. I realize that the 'impersonal' nature of internet email exchange leads to a certain heightened braveness, a certain lack of need for discipline or of civil behaviour and allows for a more free milieu for venting, even in an abusive manner as we have witnessed, but being on the receiving end of such -- Is that really my problem? Only, if I make it one and as you can see, I ave not because I am not easily provoked. And, that is not arrogance, but the "<un>reality" that I see these internet exchanges to be. They are not real, or necessarily responsible in any sense, and by extension, the quality of information exchanged here is questionable as well. My informality has lately on this forum has been confused with arrogance, even by well-wishers on internet but strangely never in real life. That is the acid-test I must live by and not some stray comment of someone who hardly knows me, or cares about, or got rankled by something I wrote which got misunderstood and which pushed some buttons, or someone who has any selfish motives or an imagined score to settle or whatever, etc. If I was arrogant, instead of informal, would my responses in this thread or similar ones not have been different? That is reality for you, and for me, and exactly what I insist upon, all the time and try my best to remain in and invite others to be in and enjoy -- in astrology and its animated reflection and expression: the human experience! RR , "yakshi_yakshi" <yakshi_yakshi> wrote: > I think the problem is a common one that happens in newsgroups, disembodied > messages get interpreted just on the basis of the text, and not motives. I > will try to show below what is wrong with your post. Think of your text as > representing a person. > > > If this is true, that 80% is destined, deity governed and in other > > words, natural selection=based then the warnings given by sages in > > classics about not teaching astrology to many or spriritually > > undeveloped students would not have been sounded. > > Too verbose, long, and unnecessarily flamboyant. Wrong language "register" > to use in this group. Takes a long time to parse, raises irritation levels > of ordinary people. Taken as a person, this paragraph gives the impression > of someone who says high-faluting words and sentences to impress people. > > If they knew what > > they were talking about in this matter, > > Unnecessary skepticism, gives the impression of an overcritical, even > condescending, person. The bracketed comment below (on his estimate) has > the same effect. > > >it would mean that the > > technical part of astrology (10% by your estimation) would have to > > be a lot more important than 10%. > > > Percentages like this have been bandied about by many astrologers. > > One famous contemporary giant > > Sarcasm, particularly the comment about the giant. Gives the impression of > a smirking person. > > >quoted a value of 82% for the success > > rate of predictions without indicating if this was based on a study > > or empirical observation of actual prediction by many jyotishis, > > etc. This kind of 'number/percentage'-dropping can be misleading > > unless accompanied by supporting data (1600 jyotishis were followed > > and 82% of their predictions regarding marriage were found to come > > to pass... etc). > > Good point, badly put, to the wrong audience. Most people here don't care > about scientific principles and validity, they just want to know > predictions, or know more about how to make them; they want equations. > > > Please do not take it personally but just as a cautionary note that > > should raise questions. If jyotish is science its technical part > > should have a more than 10% contribution. And if it is 80% something > > else, then why do we continue to call it science, exact or even > > inexact? > > You are preaching scepticism in an evangelist church, and that too with an > attitude. I am not surprised by the response. > > I agree with the general observation made that you swoop down from the > heights to pick out a mistake, make general comments, and then vanish. But > I can see (now) that that could be your style, you may be more interested > in general principles and only want to correct such things, but that is > unhelpful to most people here. Combined with your style of writing, that > focus makes for a very flammable combination. And you get flamed. > > In case you are interested, here's what you could do: When you make > comments about general principles, make them in a more concrete way, give a > chart configuration, explain why you think it should lead to effect X, and > how your interpretation contradicts the claim made. And try doing that > without a lot of flourish. That way, everyone gains. You as a teacher, and > the group as students. > > Note that the recommendation is just a capsule version of your own constant > harping, about dealing with real charts and real situations! :-) > > Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 > I am not here as a teacher but as a participant. If someone views me > as a teacher and I fall off his or her pedestal, is it my doing or > problem? Hence the language rules that you elaborated upon do not apply > to me. Ah well, I tried, didn't I? Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2004 Report Share Posted August 27, 2004 And I respect your benevolent kindness in trying to do that! RR , "yakshi_yakshi" <yakshi_yakshi> wrote: > > I am not here as a teacher but as a participant. If someone views me > > as a teacher and I fall off his or her pedestal, is it my doing or > > problem? Hence the language rules that you elaborated upon do not apply > > to me. > > Ah well, I tried, didn't I? > > Y Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 Hello asutoshji, Just wanted to mention that if u are doubtful about RohiniRanjan helping anyone with his astrological readings ,please visit the crystal pages and Jyotish-vani regards SEKHAR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.