continued-2

Vajra's next comment exactly illustrates why this blog needs to exist.



(color added)

@Shiv
Not at all.
I am glad you printed that particular passage. Every single line of that, every single word has been substantiated, not by one individual, by collective examination of the records and the analyses, by collective debate and discussion, a lively discussion, whereby parts were enhanced, parts were discarded, and nothing was accepted at face value. Thereafter, this has been repeated several times, typically when a pilgrim comes by and with incredible effrontery, claims that since he has not been a participant, that entire discussion does not exist, and the matter must be thrashed out anew.

You, unfortunately, regrettably, are today that pilgrim; instead of having the humility to look for what exists, in ample measure, you have the arrogance to name your offering and equate it to a summary of a detailed discussion extending over many days and referenced at every step. And you have the barefaced gall to call the two crap.

The test is simple. To show that you are dishonest and lazy, I have to do nothing more than point readers, and you for that matter, to the archives. All the moderators, YLH, BCiv and AZW, were participants in most of the discussions; YLH and BCiv were participants in all.

If you come to this with some humility, without the brazen objective of staking your positions without any preliminary or groundwork, and claiming that these are sufficient because your intellect is sufficient, you might find information. I cannot comment on whether you will find knowledge. I can comment, however, that you are letting down your own intellectual capacity, and your competence, by taking a short-cut that was never necessary.

 The archives of a blog where the comments are heavily moderated are supposed to be proof of something?  of what?

______
And elsewhere Vajra writes:

Vajra said, on June 24, 2010 at 5:47 am

@Arun Gupta
Two mistakes in one sentence; fairly typical.
The consensus history of Pakteahouse as quoted by Shiv is nothing but the consensus history of Pakistan as written by Shiv and quoted by Shiv.
Vajra has certified the consensus history evolved at Pakteahouse, not the version as quoted by Shiv.