On Mar 27, 3:48=A0pm, ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:22:17 -0700 (PDT), bmo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >On Mar 27, 10:59?am, ni...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:04:33 -0500, Jim Walsh
>
> >> <jSPAMimNwals...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> >On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:01:54 -0500, niday wrote:
>
> >> >> Lamaism has nothing to do with Buddhism. It only uses Buddhism as
it=
s
> >> >> cover. Behind the closed temple doors, it's vicious evil and
inhuman=
> >> >> brutality beyond human comprehension.
>
> >> >If you really believe that you would have no objection to the DL
> >> >returning to Tibet because Lamaism is dead, kaput, gone.
>
> >> Wrong. Exactly because I recognize the evil nature of Lamaism, I'm
> >> dead against Da-Lie returning to Tibet. Lamaism is dead, but its evil
> >> venoms still exist. There must be a complete eradication of Lamaism
> >> within the Tibetan society.
>
> >You sound like a page out of the Chinese government's propaganda book.
>
> Not likely. As I'm actually advocating more radical measures than the
> government is willing to implement.
>
>
>
> >> >There is no way for any Lama to reimpose the undemocratic and evil
rul=
e
> >> >of Lamaism, right? So what are you afraid of?
>
> >> There is nothing I'm afraid of. I simply don't want Lamaism to exist.
> >> To put it plainly, I want Da-Lie die.
>
> >And I want all of the foolish young Chinese men on this NG to see
> >things more realistically.
>
> >Neither seems likely to happen for a while.
>
> Well, I have made my point. That's enough for me.
Yes, you have made your point, misguided as it may be...
|
