This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I am going to start re-editing this page. This whole page has just been lifted from GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org and is a violation of copyright. Apart from that, people posting stuff are indulging childish POV jibes. For the time being, I have left the edit as it is, but I will start working on cleaning up the article from tomorrow.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a medium for people to brag about each other's war heroics.
AreJay 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Was there any fighting on the border of East Pakistan in 1965?
Oystertoadfish 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 23:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is in reference to the edits made by Idleguy and his reasoning for the reverse edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=IndoPakistani_War_of_1965&oldid=13836504. Allow me to differentiate between a neutral author and neurtal point of view. Idleguy included the following:
This excerpt is from GlobalSecurity.org (which, in actuality, licensed the original artical from Fas.org). These two (GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org) are neutral authors because they are not party to the 1965 war. However, and this is the distinction, they definately have a point of view ("..what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.." et al). The purpose of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. In other words, to present positions that are indisputable. This excerpt, clearly, is disputable, especially with respect to Pakistan and Pakistani writers. It is not a fact, it is an opinon and dosen't belong here. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for more information. I will therefore be reverting the edits to the most recent NPOV copy. Please feel free to edit and improve this article with information that is indisputable. AreJay 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 16:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
This is in reference to the very factually incorrect edits of 129.100.224.148 that reeked of military bravado than presenting facutally correct informtion. AreJay, Idleguy and Variable have reverted these edits, but the vandalism is persistant.
Excerpts of the vandalism include:
This is not to mention the blatantly copyright infringing use of the image image 65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg, and the further POV alternate text "Khem Karan, the Indian market town, was the place from where Indians were to launch their thrust on Kasur and then on to Lahore. The milestone in the picture with Pakistani soldiers in the background in an eloquent footnote to India's defeated ambitions".
I urge 129.100.224.148 to cease and desist from making factually incorrect, POV edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and users rely on it for unbiased information.
In the event that 129.100.224.148 continues unabated to indulge in vandalism, the user will be reported to the vandalism in progress wiki facility and blocked from making edits on this site.
AreJay 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If anybody here cares to read up American sources, the Indians clearly were poised to win in the long run; though it remains subject to what 'win' would mean. In my context it would be simple tuckering of Pakistan's supplies and resources-- 221.135.224.58 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)ScytheofLuna
What is going on here? First of all, Arejay, you can't protect the page. Even if you were able, you are involved in an edit war over it. The other guy, you're just reverting it pointlessly. Bring your problems to talk and do things the right way. Grace Note 23:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 00:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, guys, I've looked at this article. There seem to be several points of dispute. One side is presenting a pro-Indian POV, the other a pro-Pakistani POV. The article is not particularly neutral either way. Now, the question that a neutral observer (me, in this case) asks is, Are the figures etc disputed by India and Pakistan or only by AreJay's camp and Napoleon12's camp? Can AreJay and Napoleon12 present sources for the amounts of territory they say were seized and for the progress of the war? AreJay, you give one source. Global Security is not actually a scholarly work on the war, so far as I know.
It would be perfectly acceptable to present Indian and Pakistani sources. There's nothing preventing biased sources from being used, so long as they are clearly marked as sources that are making claims and not presenting facts.
What I suggest is that Napoleon12, who seems to be the disputant of the consensus view, presents a list here on talk of the changes he wishes to make, with each one backed up by a source. He has been cautioned already against using emotional language. Wikipedia is neutral. It doesn't make judgements of one side or the other's military prowess or martial fervour. AreJay, I ask you too to support all facts and figures in this article with sources. The outcome of your not doing so is likely to be that the article will be rewritten with all disputed areas removed. It's an important thing on Wikipedia to give sources for factual claims, because this allows others to verify the facts you are presenting. They need not be online. Grace Note 23:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as facts and figures, please refer to the last three external links in the article. The last article is entitled "Official history of the 1965 war", published by a Pakistani newspaper. The second to last link is an "Official War History" as detailed by the History Division of the Ministry of Defence, India. Ever single figure that I have added to this article has been referenced, either in the article itself, or on this page, during my debates with other wikipedia members.
Please understand that this is not a pro-Indian POV vs. pro Pakistan POV issue. The user in question has been deleting and adding POV information to every single Indo-Pakistani war page on wikipedia, since yesterday and is not willing to listen to reason or engage in discourse with other wikipedians. That is the real issue. I hope this makes things a little clearer.
AreJay 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firstly I'm not one of the "gang" nor is AreJay or anyone here as Grace seems to put it. Secondly the "neutral" view itself is not really well educated nor do they properly read the threads or history of the pages concerned. The neutral sources and some biased views are already given in the said articles. Yet Grace is asking that this user and his sockpuppets come to the talk page and show his sources. I wonder why a vandal would frequent a talk page? I don't see him coming and if anyone believes he is going to discuss this openly is naive. Secondly the problem isn't only to this article but ALL articles related to the India pakistan wars. Incase these neutrals don't have time to read or understand here's the lowdown:
Incase it has not been noticed he has a pattern of simply reverting to his previous version without engaging in discussion like we are doing here. So the fact is while we talk about this and try to resolve he jolly well seems to care less for Wikipedia or its neutral stance and simply reverts to his POV. In those articles too, users like myself and other different users have reverted it to the non-chauvinistic versions time & again. User:Ragib is asking for this vandal to come to the talk page and discuss the 1971 war which the miscreant refuses to do. Yet nothing is being done about it or his blatant cut and copy of text from the net. If anyone still has any lingering doubts then search by selecting the sentences used to describe his photos on google and u will get an exact match down to the last punctuation error.
To avoid such future disputes I suggest that people should have a user account incase they want to break the 3 revert rule. that way it would be easier to block the user. Even now one of his sockpuppets Napoleon12 can be blocked.-- Idleguy 02:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I happily agree with Grace Note and I shall back my sources up with fact. I am currently happy with the unbiased point of view of this article. I might have to do more research in the Self-Defence wars of Pakistan, and it may take me a few days.
Don't you worry I will get the copyright approval. Plus, I am trying to show the TRUTH will is the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.
-- Idleguy 11:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do have time on my hands. LOL. I am a Professional Electrical Engineer sacking of at work at the office. I am proud of the PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES and of being a Pakistani.
I will never let any Indian type up an analysis of the Indo-Pak Wars on Wikipedia, unless it is fully neutral by an independent observer with the proper research (preferring someone of American, Canadian or European Descent).
I will get the copyright approvals for the pictures, so sit tight. -- Napoleon12
Idleguy, you being an unemployed English teacher who works as a porter in a Calcutta rail yard has nothing to do with my professional degree, LOL. You are just making me feel good about myself and how Indians have a inferiority complex! No matter how much you curse me, I will still get a pay check of $90K which is different from what you earn in Indian rupees with every time you lift a bag.
AreJay, I am still not convinced by your efforts in making this article a neutral. Too much BS with no BACK UP SOURCES. Anybody at Wikipedia type up an article and claim it as a neutral.
"* American sources claim India held 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 miles² (545 km²) of Indian territory."
Where in the world did you did you get this BS. What American Sources? Can you point out a link that is NON-INDIAN?? Did you call up the late President Johnson from the past and asked him? Who is the American Commander that you have quoted? Can you pull out a book where it says Pakistan lost 710 mile territory? LOL. BACK YOUR CLAIM UP. SIMPLE
This so FUNNY that the PAF shot only 30 Indian planes. WHAT BS! We had a complete 3:1 kill ratio! I will BACK my claim up with an UNBIASED WEBSITE. [ [1]]
I will continue the editing on this article until this article is completely UNBIASED. You don't own this site, so I can edit it anytime I want. -- Napoleon12
Since the accurate number of men and machines lost in this war is hard to obtain I'm putting up this section which shows the various other sources both neutral and partisan (except blatantly biased ones) as a placeholder. I'm doing this to get an idea of the casualties and hopefully get the closest approximate figure. Please feel free to add the losses quoting the source here.
1. Book: India Pakistan in War and Peace by J. N. Dixit (Former National Security Adviser, India)
12,500 Indian casualties; 2,700 killed, 1,500 either prisoners of war or were missing, 8,400 wounded India lost 175 and 90 tanks was out of commission temporarily. India lost 59 aircraft..
14,000 Pak casualties; 3,000 dead, 2,000 taken prisoner or missing, and roughly 9,000 were wounded. Pakistan lost 200 tanks with another 150 tanks put out of action or captured. 32% of armour lost. Pakistan lost 43 aircraft
2. Website: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com
168 tank losses for India.
300 tanks for Pakistan.
Other info not available on this site or already represented in the article as official losses.
3. ....
--
Idleguy 17:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is an interesting extract from an article by Major Humayun Amin, one of the major authorities on the subject :
The Indians continued attacking until the ceasefire was announced - by September 19th Pakistan had started to run of ammunition, aircraft spares, and reserve equipment. The Chief of the Army General Staff and the Chief of Air Staff met with the President of Pakistan that day to request a ceasefire be negotiated. Twenty-three days into the war, Pakistan was done for - hardly surprising, as the Americans had kept Pakistan on a short leash, giving just 14-21 days of supplies. Enough time for the Americans to arrive should a communist power attack Pakistan insufficient to do India any serious harm. Meanwhile, India was just getting into its stride, learning from its mistakes, pulling fresh mountain troops from the east into the western theatre. Logically, India should have continued the war, but was talked into a ceasefire by Russia and America, both of whom wanted the status quo preserved. Tintin
By all means they were not winning the war either.
I do not understand why one of the most important events of 1965 War, Operation Dwarka were left out, therefore it has been added.
Bharat-Rakshak is *not* a Neutral site, its an *Indian* site. Therefore taking numbers from it will only lead to edit war. So lets stay neutral and not present only one side's point of view.
A site that is not Indian nor Pakistani.
Another way to deal with the problem is putting Indian claims from Indian side and Pakistani claims from Pakistani side.
- Edit...Trying to imply that Rann of Kutch is *only* in India...which is wrong. - ARticle by Bharat Busan is not neutral, speaks of indian-point of view, which again you failed to mention or imply. - Do you have neutral and unbiased sources to back your claim that Pakistan started the war in Rann of Kutch?
--I'm refering to Rann of Kutch events. You are using one of the links from the site, while at the same time you fail to accept one which differs from your point-of-view from the SAME site. [4]
edited by UK Heo, Shale A Horowitz states in page pg 162 (ISBN: 027597779X) "It has been widely accepted that conflict within the Rann of Kutch offered Pakistan a cheap opportunity to test India's resolve. India responded militarily in order to protect its reputation and credibility with its Pakistani adversary."
It's not clear whether the references to Punjab are for Punjab, India or Punjab (Pakistan), so it would be nice if someone knowledgeable would disambiguate the links. TimBentley 03:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Leave copyright issues apart,this has become a page for BIGOTSUNLIMITED.COM.well everybody asserting that each's own country did better and won the war.and there are lot of crybabies,especially napolean and ragib.none of them discuss matters in a scholarly way especially the paki users. any word about 1971 or 1965 war,they will post messages of saying RSS,BJP, HINDU,RAW and what not. try to be more reasonable and counter every allegation point by point.your blatant refusal to argue and just curse and run away shows your weak minded and not professional to engage in an arguement.-- Jayanthv86 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I am going to start re-editing this page. This whole page has just been lifted from GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org and is a violation of copyright. Apart from that, people posting stuff are indulging childish POV jibes. For the time being, I have left the edit as it is, but I will start working on cleaning up the article from tomorrow.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a medium for people to brag about each other's war heroics.
AreJay 02:35, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Was there any fighting on the border of East Pakistan in 1965?
Oystertoadfish 06:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 23:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is in reference to the edits made by Idleguy and his reasoning for the reverse edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=IndoPakistani_War_of_1965&oldid=13836504. Allow me to differentiate between a neutral author and neurtal point of view. Idleguy included the following:
This excerpt is from GlobalSecurity.org (which, in actuality, licensed the original artical from Fas.org). These two (GlobalSecurity.org and Fas.org) are neutral authors because they are not party to the 1965 war. However, and this is the distinction, they definately have a point of view ("..what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.." et al). The purpose of Wikipedia is to present a neutral point of view. In other words, to present positions that are indisputable. This excerpt, clearly, is disputable, especially with respect to Pakistan and Pakistani writers. It is not a fact, it is an opinon and dosen't belong here. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view for more information. I will therefore be reverting the edits to the most recent NPOV copy. Please feel free to edit and improve this article with information that is indisputable. AreJay 20:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 16:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
This is in reference to the very factually incorrect edits of 129.100.224.148 that reeked of military bravado than presenting facutally correct informtion. AreJay, Idleguy and Variable have reverted these edits, but the vandalism is persistant.
Excerpts of the vandalism include:
This is not to mention the blatantly copyright infringing use of the image image 65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg, and the further POV alternate text "Khem Karan, the Indian market town, was the place from where Indians were to launch their thrust on Kasur and then on to Lahore. The milestone in the picture with Pakistani soldiers in the background in an eloquent footnote to India's defeated ambitions".
I urge 129.100.224.148 to cease and desist from making factually incorrect, POV edits. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and users rely on it for unbiased information.
In the event that 129.100.224.148 continues unabated to indulge in vandalism, the user will be reported to the vandalism in progress wiki facility and blocked from making edits on this site.
AreJay 04:22, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If anybody here cares to read up American sources, the Indians clearly were poised to win in the long run; though it remains subject to what 'win' would mean. In my context it would be simple tuckering of Pakistan's supplies and resources-- 221.135.224.58 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)ScytheofLuna
What is going on here? First of all, Arejay, you can't protect the page. Even if you were able, you are involved in an edit war over it. The other guy, you're just reverting it pointlessly. Bring your problems to talk and do things the right way. Grace Note 23:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
AreJay 00:10, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right, guys, I've looked at this article. There seem to be several points of dispute. One side is presenting a pro-Indian POV, the other a pro-Pakistani POV. The article is not particularly neutral either way. Now, the question that a neutral observer (me, in this case) asks is, Are the figures etc disputed by India and Pakistan or only by AreJay's camp and Napoleon12's camp? Can AreJay and Napoleon12 present sources for the amounts of territory they say were seized and for the progress of the war? AreJay, you give one source. Global Security is not actually a scholarly work on the war, so far as I know.
It would be perfectly acceptable to present Indian and Pakistani sources. There's nothing preventing biased sources from being used, so long as they are clearly marked as sources that are making claims and not presenting facts.
What I suggest is that Napoleon12, who seems to be the disputant of the consensus view, presents a list here on talk of the changes he wishes to make, with each one backed up by a source. He has been cautioned already against using emotional language. Wikipedia is neutral. It doesn't make judgements of one side or the other's military prowess or martial fervour. AreJay, I ask you too to support all facts and figures in this article with sources. The outcome of your not doing so is likely to be that the article will be rewritten with all disputed areas removed. It's an important thing on Wikipedia to give sources for factual claims, because this allows others to verify the facts you are presenting. They need not be online. Grace Note 23:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As far as facts and figures, please refer to the last three external links in the article. The last article is entitled "Official history of the 1965 war", published by a Pakistani newspaper. The second to last link is an "Official War History" as detailed by the History Division of the Ministry of Defence, India. Ever single figure that I have added to this article has been referenced, either in the article itself, or on this page, during my debates with other wikipedia members.
Please understand that this is not a pro-Indian POV vs. pro Pakistan POV issue. The user in question has been deleting and adding POV information to every single Indo-Pakistani war page on wikipedia, since yesterday and is not willing to listen to reason or engage in discourse with other wikipedians. That is the real issue. I hope this makes things a little clearer.
AreJay 00:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Firstly I'm not one of the "gang" nor is AreJay or anyone here as Grace seems to put it. Secondly the "neutral" view itself is not really well educated nor do they properly read the threads or history of the pages concerned. The neutral sources and some biased views are already given in the said articles. Yet Grace is asking that this user and his sockpuppets come to the talk page and show his sources. I wonder why a vandal would frequent a talk page? I don't see him coming and if anyone believes he is going to discuss this openly is naive. Secondly the problem isn't only to this article but ALL articles related to the India pakistan wars. Incase these neutrals don't have time to read or understand here's the lowdown:
Incase it has not been noticed he has a pattern of simply reverting to his previous version without engaging in discussion like we are doing here. So the fact is while we talk about this and try to resolve he jolly well seems to care less for Wikipedia or its neutral stance and simply reverts to his POV. In those articles too, users like myself and other different users have reverted it to the non-chauvinistic versions time & again. User:Ragib is asking for this vandal to come to the talk page and discuss the 1971 war which the miscreant refuses to do. Yet nothing is being done about it or his blatant cut and copy of text from the net. If anyone still has any lingering doubts then search by selecting the sentences used to describe his photos on google and u will get an exact match down to the last punctuation error.
To avoid such future disputes I suggest that people should have a user account incase they want to break the 3 revert rule. that way it would be easier to block the user. Even now one of his sockpuppets Napoleon12 can be blocked.-- Idleguy 02:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
I happily agree with Grace Note and I shall back my sources up with fact. I am currently happy with the unbiased point of view of this article. I might have to do more research in the Self-Defence wars of Pakistan, and it may take me a few days.
Don't you worry I will get the copyright approval. Plus, I am trying to show the TRUTH will is the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.
-- Idleguy 11:55, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do have time on my hands. LOL. I am a Professional Electrical Engineer sacking of at work at the office. I am proud of the PAKISTAN ARMED FORCES and of being a Pakistani.
I will never let any Indian type up an analysis of the Indo-Pak Wars on Wikipedia, unless it is fully neutral by an independent observer with the proper research (preferring someone of American, Canadian or European Descent).
I will get the copyright approvals for the pictures, so sit tight. -- Napoleon12
Idleguy, you being an unemployed English teacher who works as a porter in a Calcutta rail yard has nothing to do with my professional degree, LOL. You are just making me feel good about myself and how Indians have a inferiority complex! No matter how much you curse me, I will still get a pay check of $90K which is different from what you earn in Indian rupees with every time you lift a bag.
AreJay, I am still not convinced by your efforts in making this article a neutral. Too much BS with no BACK UP SOURCES. Anybody at Wikipedia type up an article and claim it as a neutral.
"* American sources claim India held 710 mile² (1,840 km²) of Pakistani territory and Pakistan held 210 miles² (545 km²) of Indian territory."
Where in the world did you did you get this BS. What American Sources? Can you point out a link that is NON-INDIAN?? Did you call up the late President Johnson from the past and asked him? Who is the American Commander that you have quoted? Can you pull out a book where it says Pakistan lost 710 mile territory? LOL. BACK YOUR CLAIM UP. SIMPLE
This so FUNNY that the PAF shot only 30 Indian planes. WHAT BS! We had a complete 3:1 kill ratio! I will BACK my claim up with an UNBIASED WEBSITE. [ [1]]
I will continue the editing on this article until this article is completely UNBIASED. You don't own this site, so I can edit it anytime I want. -- Napoleon12
Since the accurate number of men and machines lost in this war is hard to obtain I'm putting up this section which shows the various other sources both neutral and partisan (except blatantly biased ones) as a placeholder. I'm doing this to get an idea of the casualties and hopefully get the closest approximate figure. Please feel free to add the losses quoting the source here.
1. Book: India Pakistan in War and Peace by J. N. Dixit (Former National Security Adviser, India)
12,500 Indian casualties; 2,700 killed, 1,500 either prisoners of war or were missing, 8,400 wounded India lost 175 and 90 tanks was out of commission temporarily. India lost 59 aircraft..
14,000 Pak casualties; 3,000 dead, 2,000 taken prisoner or missing, and roughly 9,000 were wounded. Pakistan lost 200 tanks with another 150 tanks put out of action or captured. 32% of armour lost. Pakistan lost 43 aircraft
2. Website: http://www.bharat-rakshak.com
168 tank losses for India.
300 tanks for Pakistan.
Other info not available on this site or already represented in the article as official losses.
3. ....
--
Idleguy 17:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
There is an interesting extract from an article by Major Humayun Amin, one of the major authorities on the subject :
The Indians continued attacking until the ceasefire was announced - by September 19th Pakistan had started to run of ammunition, aircraft spares, and reserve equipment. The Chief of the Army General Staff and the Chief of Air Staff met with the President of Pakistan that day to request a ceasefire be negotiated. Twenty-three days into the war, Pakistan was done for - hardly surprising, as the Americans had kept Pakistan on a short leash, giving just 14-21 days of supplies. Enough time for the Americans to arrive should a communist power attack Pakistan insufficient to do India any serious harm. Meanwhile, India was just getting into its stride, learning from its mistakes, pulling fresh mountain troops from the east into the western theatre. Logically, India should have continued the war, but was talked into a ceasefire by Russia and America, both of whom wanted the status quo preserved. Tintin
By all means they were not winning the war either.
I do not understand why one of the most important events of 1965 War, Operation Dwarka were left out, therefore it has been added.
Bharat-Rakshak is *not* a Neutral site, its an *Indian* site. Therefore taking numbers from it will only lead to edit war. So lets stay neutral and not present only one side's point of view.
A site that is not Indian nor Pakistani.
Another way to deal with the problem is putting Indian claims from Indian side and Pakistani claims from Pakistani side.
- Edit...Trying to imply that Rann of Kutch is *only* in India...which is wrong. - ARticle by Bharat Busan is not neutral, speaks of indian-point of view, which again you failed to mention or imply. - Do you have neutral and unbiased sources to back your claim that Pakistan started the war in Rann of Kutch?
--I'm refering to Rann of Kutch events. You are using one of the links from the site, while at the same time you fail to accept one which differs from your point-of-view from the SAME site. [4]
edited by UK Heo, Shale A Horowitz states in page pg 162 (ISBN: 027597779X) "It has been widely accepted that conflict within the Rann of Kutch offered Pakistan a cheap opportunity to test India's resolve. India responded militarily in order to protect its reputation and credibility with its Pakistani adversary."
It's not clear whether the references to Punjab are for Punjab, India or Punjab (Pakistan), so it would be nice if someone knowledgeable would disambiguate the links. TimBentley 03:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Leave copyright issues apart,this has become a page for BIGOTSUNLIMITED.COM.well everybody asserting that each's own country did better and won the war.and there are lot of crybabies,especially napolean and ragib.none of them discuss matters in a scholarly way especially the paki users. any word about 1971 or 1965 war,they will post messages of saying RSS,BJP, HINDU,RAW and what not. try to be more reasonable and counter every allegation point by point.your blatant refusal to argue and just curse and run away shows your weak minded and not professional to engage in an arguement.-- Jayanthv86 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)