In Reply to: Re: Pot Calls Kettle Black posted by PB on December 05, 2007 at 15:34:31:
Oh glad that you reacted...am surprised... and not surprised about the hardly new thoughts of yours,my problems may stem from formulating/articulating my thoughts the best way possible as English is not my mothertongue...very correct...my problem constitutes hardly in understanding your train of thoughts which are kind of very predictable and also lacking sometimes in logic.
To make it plain and easy for you: both vessels can be black from residues stemming from the heating process...spilled food carbonized whatever...unless one item comes straight from the shop brandnew or whatever unequal premises and that is not what I think happens to be general thought behind the idiom.
You used that idiom...hyperbolic language, so live with it...the Perry got himself into it... now he says it ain't so... a bit cheap...
I am wondering whether you understood the phrase.
The pope being hypocritical is another thing and not at all something I dismiss.However even a smoker can point out the dangers of smoking...so may be you should read the popes criticism under a new angle/point of view...or do you defend Marxism?Your coming out here, please?!
By the way I am able to discern between statepower
run atrocities against humanity and atheists as such...nowhere in my posts you should be able to
find some automatic linking of atheisism with evil deeds.
However you open yourself in your defense for a simple counterattack: why do you think it doesn't
count for "Christian" governments as well...or kings or Ceasars?(Personally I think it to be an oxymoron to be a "Christian" in power...
you don't find any such advise in the Gospel)
Kings & bishops had their mighty links and alliances, but more often than not statepower and churchpower were two things.
I can't get it, why you seem to be keen on defending communism?Just my impression?I figure it has to do with your realised painful inability of humans to be nice & communistic and especially by people who threw God out of their
middle.
Please quote me, where I said, I am so fond of the pope...just cheap/quick sarcasm, Perry, but you remain also faithful in that one & well, I can live with it...but don't you think, you could in my (poor) case be a bit more down to the facts, and not only when you have some opponent called Dr.Chancelor.You complained quite quickly about some snap remarks he supposedly made...ah well,Perry...I don't expect righteousness from you...after all we're both some fallen human beings (but I still know, who gave me a helping "hand")
Actually I just came to the site to paste something I had copied shortly before...enjoy the reading and that you're not living in a communistic country:
All this in true Leninist-Stalinist tradition! In September 1919, Lenin wrote to Gorky: "Why these incredibly angry words of yours? Because several dozen (or may be even hundred) cadet or quasi-cadet gentry will be several days in jail as a safeguard against conspiracies?...the bourgeoisie and its accomplices, those smart little intellectuals, the lackeys of capital, who fancy themselves the nation’s brains. In point of fact, they are not brains but shit".
Lenin had no patience with the intelligentsia, whether bourgeoisie or a new one of workers and peasants. He spoke his mind quite clearly: "In general, as you probably know, I am not particularly fond of intelligentsia, and our new slogan ‘eliminate illiteracy’ should by no means be taken as expressing a wish to give birth to a new intelligentsia. To ‘eliminate illiteracy’ is necessary only so that every peasant, every worker can read our decrees, orders and appeals by himself without anyone’s help. The goal is purely practical. That’s all there is to it".
The party had to, after all, keep itself regularly informed of what was happening in the world of intelligentsia, and every educational organ and institution, had its quota of "creative intellectuals" working in close collaboration with the party. It is they who strengthened the hands of the party to take punitive measures against those with any kind of anti-Soviet edge; writers and poets devoured their own tribe.
For years on end, Stalin and the top party leadership carried on this tradition, treating dissenting intelligentsia as "socially dangerous" elements. The 20th party congress in 1956 made little difference to this tradition of maintaining an aggressively accusatory stance towards intellectuals. Recall the disgraceful affair of Boris Pasternak; nothing was left undone to destroy his good name. The hounding of Andre Sakharov and Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are still fresh in our minds. The ruling party in West Bengal can certainly be proud of remaining faithful to the Leninist-Stalinist legacy. They could join in with what Khrushchev once exclaimed in a fit of reflexive intolerance: "We’re not giving up Stalin to anyone".
(The writer is former chairman, State Bank of India.)