Mervyn Lobo: The question is a simple one. I will repeat it once again: Is it possible that any of your messages could be incorrect? You deliberately decided not to answer the question.This is the reason why I stoped reading your output here.
Response: No debate or dialogue can start when: 1. one of the parties is totally unaware of the merits / demerits of the issue being debated but dishes out certificates for one and passes judgement on another. The person has to start with a clean and unbiased mind. 2. one of the parties is compelled to accept ab initio that he has posted deliberately or intentionally incorrect material. Mervyn Lobo: A debate will always go around in circles when one party absolutely refuses to understand or avoids what someone else has to say. This is the good case scenario. The almost worst case scenario is when one debater senses he is losing and goes on an accusation and/or foul mouthed spree. Response: My response has been very clear, honest and open. I have said that if you can point out and prove any incorrect message, I am willing to be corrected. You will kindly appreciate that I am not a person in the habit of knowingly and intentionally making incorrect statements. However, I do have the humility to accept that I may be wrong if such wrong is pointed out and proved to me. In fact, in the past, I have explicitly stated that I welcome feedback, because it helps me to correct myself. This is more than a fair response. For you to say that one party refuses to understand or avoid what someone else has to say betrays a bias. It appears that you have already decided to pre-judge a party guilty and now wants to build a case to justify the same. We call this creative accounting in India - where the profit or loss is decided beforehand and then the debit / credit entries are passed to arrive at the desired conclusion. Regards, Marshall