Self respect movement

[Nara]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I am writing this post, because I do not think that you realize this dichotomy.

This is not by any means to offend you.

Well, I will let Raghy speak for himself. IMO, Raghy did not cross the line of assuming what I realize or not realize. Problems arise when manufactured motives are attached to what I am talking about, or what I am saying. It is disheartening to see even the most "civil" member indulging in "you don't realize", "you don't know", "you .. this..", "you ... that..", etc. Yes, the epithets and wild speculations of juvanile members do get moderated, for that I am thankful. That by itself is proof of what I was saying with respect to the discussion I had with Raghy, no more proof is needed.

In the final analysis, though Raghy and I did not agree on any of the essentials, yet we didn't accuse each other, or speculate about each other -- at least that is how I perceived our conversation. If this is seen as I giving special consideration to Raghy, all I can say is, that is absurd.

I am least concerned about how I am perceived, let it be that I am seen as the most inconsiderate, most stupid, most idiotic, most unrealized, most self-centered, or whatever else can be conjured up. I care a hoot. If there is any serious rebuttal of the ideas I am presenting I shall respond with as much, or more, respect, courtesy, and civility, anybody in this forum has demonstrated so far, not because I will be moderated otherwise, but because that is the only kind of conversation I am interested in.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

Here is the perfect example of what I am talking about.

When I say 'I do not THINK YOU REALIZE', it is exactly to say that I do not think you are getting my point, as you stated to Sri Raghy Ji several times.

Sorry, in my opinion, Sri Raghy also imputed quite a bit that involves saying 'you'. As I said before, these 'wild speculations' as you call them are normal part of any discussions and can be answered with simple statements. I don't see how they constitute any 'personal' attacks. How are they different from you calling 'theists' as 'irrational'?

The frustration I have is that the definition of 'civilized' language seems to vary by people and not on discussion.

I have been saying that it takes both who are having the conversation to be civil to each other. In your conversations with Sri Raghy Ji, for example, the only reason you are having the 'civil' conversation with each other, because unlike others, he is not taking the way you are putting forward your ideas as direct and sharp (I don't need his approval for this statement, as one can easily see by the conversation and the words used) and he is quite good in indirectly addressing those.

I do not mind you using certain 'sharp' words in the conversation. My only point is that there seems to be a double standard in the way other members' posts with same types of sharp words are treated.

This has nothing to do with Moderation. It has everything to do with the way ideas are being exchanged by you and others.

If you can not acknowledge this simple plain truth, then so be it.

Regards,
KRS

Well, I will let Raghy speak for himself. IMO, Raghy did not cross the line of assuming what I realize or not realize. Problems arise when manufactured motives are attached to what I am talking about, or what I am saying. It is disheartening to see even the most "civil" member indulging in "you don't realize", "you don't know", "you .. this..", "you ... that..", etc. Yes, the epithets and wild speculations of juvanile members do get moderated, for that I am thankful. That by itself is proof of what I was saying with respect to the discussion I had with Raghy, no more proof is needed.

In the final analysis, though Raghy and I did not agree on any of the essentials, yet we didn't accuse each other, or speculate about each other -- at least that is how I perceived our conversation. If this is seen as I giving special consideration to Raghy, all I can say is, that is absurd.

I am least concerned about how I am perceived, let it be that I am seen as the most inconsiderate, most stupid, most idiotic, most unrealized, most self-centered, or whatever else can be conjured up. I care a hoot. If there is any serious rebuttal of the ideas I am presenting I shall respond with as much, or more, respect, courtesy, and civility, anybody in this forum has demonstrated so far, not because I will be moderated otherwise, but because that is the only kind of conversation I am interested in.

Cheers!

 

[C RAVI]

Very good observation and clear cut post #250 and #252, Shri KRS. I should appreciate and be happy that, "you" as a member here, presented your views clearly and honestly.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong to put forward in a forum like this,by a member, as what an another member's stand/views/opinions are, based on his/her postings on different thread topics, as much as one could observe and gain understanding of the other.

IMHO, there is nothing wrong to have strong oppositions with each other, off course in a civil way, as the topic/debate demands. And taking all such sharp arguments as "impersonal" and "personal to the ideas expressed alone" would be the right way of having positive impressions on each other.

I still remember a statement, which was so casually and friendly handled by Shri Sravna. Long before in "God Exists" thread, when Shri Sravna presented his personal views against the atheistic views, Shri Nara asked him - "Sravna, are you smoking weed"?

What sort of speculation it is against a member (shri. Sravna)? Shri Sravna, didn't take it seriously and there was no hue and cry from his end. He is a gem of a person, a matured, fair and a highly skilled member who presents his views very lucidly and handle any such accusations, speculations etc in a very smart, descent and casual manner.

Shri Nara,

Please don't mistake me that I am accusing you. I am just highlighting that, it all depends on how we take things. The rule of the debating game and the general psychological feelings of each members are not unique to one self, in a broader sense.

You must be knowing that, you don't approve theism and you have criticism towards Brahmin Caste in some or other ways. Where as majority of members here are theists and brahmins. When you express your views sharply with all your critical thinking and point blank approach to get your ideas across very clearly and assertively, and when a counter arguments are presented to that of your views and opinions, it is very much common to have such counter arguments in a same sharp and critical manner. Many may definitely have an opinion about your views on each topic. Some may express here and some may not. When I expressed my observations about your views in this thread, it was all about what / how and why you have taken a stand that you have taken in this thread. It was not to criticize "you" as an individual, as Shri Nara.

But see, a speculation was made against me in a very strong manner that, I attempted to talk ill of you. I only took it as a member's wrong observation on me and I presented my counter to that member as amicably as possible. But off course, with all my critical thinking and straight forwardness. As well, I am having nothing against that member in my heart and would never be burdened to view that member negatively, at any point of time.

A "myth" will remain a "myth" ever, as long as we remain focus on our personal interest and have our eyes and brains closed.

As Shri KRS has stated, a personal sweet remarks and appending "please" to the concluding statements seem to make you feel that others are not considerate towards you. A sharp counter arguments to that of your similar sharp comments can not be construed as uncivil exchanges of others with you.

Let us unanimously come out of all the "myth" and try our best to explore the realities of our self, others and among all.

 

[kameshratnam]

கடவுள் வேண்டும் என்று சொல்கின்ற-கடவுளை விடமுடியாதவர்களுக்குத்தான் என்பது சரி என்றால் சாதி வேண்டும் என்று சொல்லுகின்ற-சாதியை விடமுடியாதவர்களுக்கு சாதியை கடைபிடியுங்கள் என்று கூறுவீர்களா? சாதியைவிட்டுவிட வேண்டும் என்று சொல்கின்றபோது சாதியை விடமுடியாதவர்களுக்கு மட்டும் சாதியை கடைபிடியுங்கள் என்று சொன்னால் அது எவ்வளவு மூடத்தனமோ அதேபோலத்தான் கடவுள் இல்லை என்று சொல்கின்றபோது கடவுளை விடமுடியாதவர்களுக்கு மட்டும் கடவுளை கும்பிடுங்கள் என்று சொன்னால் அதுவும் பகுத்தறிவற்ற மூடத்தனம் ஆகும். ஆனால் இப்படி பகுத்தறிவற்ற முறையில் பேசிய ஈ.வே. ராமசாமி நாயக்கரைத் தானே பகுத்தறிவு பகலவன் என்று சொல்லுகின்றார்கள் பகுத்தறிவுவாதிகள்!

 

[ozone]

Sri Nara,
Your Post # 247

It is not about 3% and 97% etc. It is not about who else is clinging on to the anachronistic and retrograde ideology, it is about each of us, and to what extent we measure up to our own sense of morality.

Your Post #249

What Brahminism includes is something Brahmins must realize, I am not willing to play the three monkeys of see-no-evil, etc.

Could you please be more explicit about where you belong? 3%, 97%, outside these, or something else.
I am asking this because you used 'we' in post 247 and then 'they' to a reply in post 249.
In Post #251

I am least concerned about how I am perceived, let it be that I am seen as the most inconsiderate, most stupid, most idiotic, most unrealized, most self-centered, or whatever else can be conjured up. I care a hoot.

I would request you to walk back to the innumerable posts where you have commented about what others are upto with you
(and not your posts). If only you really cared a hoot, would those descriptions ever occurred to you?

If there is any serious rebuttal of the ideas I am presenting I shall respond with as much, or more, respect, courtesy, and civility, anybody in this forum has demonstrated so far, not because I will be moderated otherwise, but because that is the only kind of conversation I am interested in.

Is this to be read as yet another excuse? In other words, you always write in a civil way and about ideas only, not about people, but whenever you have been uncivil (which is never the case in your view), you have an excuse to do so (and so cannot be seen as uncivil)
that you are the only one privileged to have an excuse, because you think so.
Am I clear about you now without any speculations?

 

[renuka]

I am least concerned about how I am perceived, let it be that I am seen as the most inconsiderate, most stupid, most idiotic, most unrealized, most self-centered, or whatever else can be conjured up. I care a hoot. If there is any serious rebuttal of the ideas I am presenting I shall respond with as much, or more, respect, courtesy, and civility, anybody in this forum has demonstrated so far, not because I will be moderated otherwise, but because that is the only kind of conversation I am interested in.

Cheers!

Dear Nara,

Happy to know you have decided to turn a new leaf even though some of us might miss the old you.

 

[Nara]

....I do not mind you using certain 'sharp' words in the conversation. My only point is that there seems to be a double standard in the way other members' posts with same types of sharp words are treated.

Alright dear KRSji, let us do this, please do not edit out anything personal that people write about me, direct or indirect. Leave them for everyone to read. Let people decide for themselves where the double standard is coming from. Except for stuff that may peel off the little online privacy I have, I request you to not edit out or delete these comments, and in fact if you could highlight it and bold it so nobody misses them, so much the better.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sri.Nara, Greetings.

Sorry Raghy I can't make this promise. What Brahminism includes is something Brahmins must realize, I am not willing to play the three monkeys of see-no-evil, etc.

This is about my requesting you not to use the term 'Brahminism'. Fair enough. You stated

Unfortunately, Brahminism defines darma on the basis of caste. This is why I think Brahminism is inconsistent with Darma.

But the trouble is, while you accuse some members from brahmin community of practising Brahminism, You also say that Brahmins must realise brahminism. It is not fair. When you are accusing someone or a community with some charges, in this case of brahminism, the onus is on you to explain what is brahminism.Can you kindly either explain what is 'Brahminism' or 'what is not brahminism' , please? You don't have to play 'three-monkeies' at all. Thank you.

Dear Raghy, before we can agree to disagree we have to agree on what we are saying. I have a nagging feeling there is a gap between what my position is and what you are disagreeing with.[/QOTE]

Sri. Nara, that nagging feeling is well founded. I disagreed with pretty much all of your suggestions from what I understand. I am also following all of the four suggestions; but for different reasons. My reasons are simple. I don't see caste differencs.

p.s. let our conversation serve as a reminder to everyone that it is not impossible to have a civil exchange.

We did not have a civil exchange. We have been careful not to bring up any sensitive subjects. We just discussed on the subjects put on the table face up. I wish to bring couple of points to your attention, please.

About 'everyone' - I noticed your messages directed towards some members of one particular community accusing of 'Brahminism' where a clear defenition for the term 'brahminism' was not provided. I call this as 'நிழல் குத்து' or shadow boxing. In my opinion it is not a civilised way of debating.

Secondly, the brahmin community went through the discomfort of going through uncivilised actions performed by the followers of E V Ramasamy Naicker. Unfortunately your messages made some or more members go through the painful memories once again. In my opinion, most if not all the members maintained as civilised conversation as possible under the circumstances. I know, I am disagreeing with you even with this.

Sri. Nara, if one looks closely, although we disagreed, I discarded my poonool, but I am not asking anyone to do it; Usually I don't go to any temple be it is B priest or NB priest; I asked my son to choose a girl, any girl without bothering the caste at all; my son's profile in the matrimonial site said 'caste no bar'. I followed every one of your suggestion, but disagreed with every one of them.

Although your messages had a lot of criticism, all your messages were taken in by the forum. Although I did not agree with any of your suggestion, only one NB member liked my messages; none of the brahmin members indicated it if they liked it.

It does not matter who liked or disliked my messages. I am requesting you to take the path of love and inclusion. I don't really care how others judge me. You indicated that you don't either. I have no message for others; but in my opinion, you do. I really like your messages to reach across. Kindly adopt love as your main theme.

I don't think I may contribute anything more to this dicussion. Once again I thank you for this conversation.

அடியேன்

 

[Raghy]

Sri.KRS, Greetings.

Again, to have a 'civilized' conversation one needs to have it from both sides. It seems to me that when you make comments about the community, you use some incendiary words (which I have already outlined before) and tend to view the countering comments as 'uncivilized'. If you notice, Sri Raghy also see these words as negatives, and the only difference I can see is that others do not say 'please' in front of their sentences!

Sri. KRS, Greetings.

I am writing as I usually talk. I always use the word 'please'. While I was practising my trade, F word used to be the conjunction in all my sentences. Possibly had about 3 to 4 F words, still the sentences finished with 'please'!.

Cheers!

 

[tbs]

dear nara sir,
sometimes kasappana paavarkai udambukku nallathu thaan...

 

[Nara]

EVR on கற்பு

ஆரிய பாஷையில் பார்க்கும்போது மாத்திரம் கற்பு என்கின்ற பதத்திற்கு 'பதிவிரதை' என்கிற பொருள் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது. இந்த இடத்தில் தான் கற்பு என்கிற வார்த்தைக்கு அடிமைக் கருத்து நுழைக்கப்படுகின்றது என்பது எனது அபிப்பிராயம்.

பதிக்கு அடிமையாய் இருப்பதையே விரதமாகக் கொண்டவள் எனப் பொருள் கொடுத்திருப்பதுடன் பதி என்கின்ற வார்த்தைக்கு அதிகாரி, எஜமான், தலைவன் என்கிற பொருள்கள் இருப்பதால் அடிமைத்தன்மையை இவ்வார்த்தை பலப்படுத்துகின்றன.

இந்த இடத்தில் நமது திருவள்ளுவரின் நிலைமையும் எனக்கு சற்று மயக்கத்தைத் தருகின்றது. அதாவது, குறளில் வாழ்க்கைத் துணைநலத்தைப் பற்றி சொல்ல வந்த 6-ஆம் அத்தியாயத்திலும், பெண்வழிச் சேரல் என்பதைப்பற்றி சொல்லவந்த 91-வது அத்தியாயத்திலும், மற்றும் சில தனி இடங்களிலும் பெண் விஷயத்தில் மிக்க அடிமைத் தன்மையையும், தாழ்ந்த தன்மையையும் புகுத்தப்பட்டிருப்பதாகவே எண்ணக்கிடக்கின்றது. தெய்வத்தை தொழாள்... தன்னைக்கொண்டவன்.. என்றும் இம்மாதிரியான பல தாழ்த்தத் தகுந்த கருத்து கொண்ட வாசகங்கள் காணப்படுகின்றன...... திருவள்ளுவர் ஒரு ஆணாயில்லாமல் பெண்ணாயிருந்து இக்குரள்களை எழுதியிருப்பாராயின் இம்மாதிரி கருத்துக்களை காட்டியிருப்பாரா?

இவ்விஷயத்தில் உலகத்தில் இன்ன நாடோ, இன்ன மதமோ, இன்ன சமூகமோ யோக்கியமாய் நடந்து கொண்டிருப்பதாக சொல்ல முடியாது.

கற்புக்காக புருடனின் மிருகச் செயலை பொறுத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும் என்கிற கொடுமை ஒழியவேண்டும்.

கற்புக்காக மனத்துக்குள் தோன்றும் உண்மைக் காதலை மறைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும் என்கிற கொடுமை ஒழியவேண்டும்.

இக்கொடுமைகள் நீங்கின இடத்தில் மாத்திரமே மக்கள் பிறவியில் உண்மைக் கற்பை, இயற்கை கற்பைக் காணாலாம்...

 

[tbs]

திரு நர அவர்களுக்கு,
ஒரு வடகலை வைஷ்ணவ்னருக்கு இவ்வளவு தூரம் வெறுப்பு வர காரணம்? இதற்க்கு பொறுப்பு திரு வைணவ ஆச்சார்யர் அல்லது அதை சேர்ந்த
சமூகமா?.....திரு வைணவம் மற்றும் தீவர சைவமும் கொஞ்சம் அதிகம் தான்...ஆனால் ஸ்மார்த்த கொஞ்சம் தேவலை...

அடியேன்
திரு ராமானுஜ தாசன்

 

[tbs]

EVR on கற்பு

ஆரிய பாஷையில் பார்க்கும்போது மாத்திரம் கற்பு என்கின்ற பதத்திற்கு 'பதிவிரதை' என்கிற பொருள் கொள்ளப்படுகிறது. இந்த இடத்தில் தான் கற்பு என்கிற வார்த்தைக்கு அடிமைக் கருத்து நுழைக்கப்படுகின்றது என்பது எனது அபிப்பிராயம்.

பதிக்கு அடிமையாய் இருப்பதையே விரதமாகக் கொண்டவள் எனப் பொருள் கொடுத்திருப்பதுடன் பதி என்கின்ற வார்த்தைக்கு அதிகாரி, எஜமான், தலைவன் என்கிற பொருள்கள் இருப்பதால் அடிமைத்தன்மையை இவ்வார்த்தை பலப்படுத்துகின்றன.

இந்த இடத்தில் நமது திருவள்ளுவரின் நிலைமையும் எனக்கு சற்று மயக்கத்தைத் தருகின்றது. அதாவது, குறளில் வாழ்க்கைத் துணைநலத்தைப் பற்றி சொல்ல வந்த ௬-ஆம் அத்தியாயத்திலும், பெண்வழிச் சேரல் என்பதைப்பற்றி சொல்லவந்த ௯௧-வது அத்தியாயத்திலும், மற்றும் சில தனி இடங்களிலும் பெண் விஷயத்தில் மிக்க அடிமைத் தன்மையையும், தாழ்ந்த தன்மையையும் புகுத்தப்பட்டிருப்பதாகவே எண்ணக்கிடக்கின்றது. தெய்வத்தை தொழாள்... தன்னைக்கொண்டவன்.. என்றும் இம்மாதிரியான பல தாழ்த்தத் தகுந்த கருத்து கொண்ட வாசகங்கள் காணப்படுகின்றன...... திருவள்ளுவர் ஒரு ஆணாயில்லாமல் பெண்ணாயிருந்து இக்குரள்களை எழுதியிருப்பாராயின் இம்மாதிரி கருத்துக்களை காட்டியிருப்பாரா?

இவ்விஷயத்தில் உலகத்தில் இன்ன நாடோ, இன்ன மதமோ, இன்ன சமூகமோ யோக்கியமாய் நடந்து கொண்டிருப்பதாக சொல்ல முடியாது.

கற்புக்காக புருடனின் மிருகச் செயலை பொறுத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும் என்கிற கொடுமை ஒழியவேண்டும்.

கற்புக்காக மனத்துக்குள் தோன்றும் உண்மைக் காதலை மறைத்துக் கொண்டிருக்கவேண்டும் என்கிற கொடுமை ஒழியவேண்டும்.

இக்கொடுமைகள் நீங்கின இடத்தில் மாத்திரமே மக்கள் பிறவியில் உண்மைக் கற்பை, இயற்கை கற்பைக் காணாலாம்...

கற்பு என்பது ஒரு கற்பனை என்று நினைக்கறேன்...உள்ளத்தில் கற்பு வேண்டும்....உடம்பில் கற்பு வெறும் தோற்ற்றம்

 

[Nara]

... இவ்வளவு தூரம் வெறுப்பு வர காரணம்?

Sigh! tbs, I have no வெறுப்பு towards anyone.

 

[tbs]

Sigh! tbs, I have no வெறுப்பு towards anyone.

எல்லாம் அவன் சித்தம்...எல்லாம் புகழும் அவனுக்கே.

 

[tbs]

hi nara sir,
கற்பு என்பது பெண்ணிற்கு மட்டும் இல்லை...ஆண் பாலர்க்கு வேண்டும்...மெய் பட வேண்டும்....

 

[Nara]

.... When you are accusing someone or a community with some charges, in this case of brahminism, the onus is on you to explain what is brahminism.Can you kindly either explain what is 'Brahminism' or 'what is not brahminism' , please?

From post# 171, of April 11, 2012:

"I have defined the term Brahminism many times in the past. It is an ideology built around Vedas, Smritees, Dharmashashtras, and Itihasa/Purnas; one that asserts a belief in poorva-janma-karma and birth-based hierarchical varna system."
​

 

[Nara]

“The enormous privileges given to Brahmins by the Vedas were sacrosanct only as long as they went unchallenged. The challenge rose in the Tamil country like a whirlwind, spearheaded by an iconoclast who questioned the Vedas and the gods as well. He took apparently extremist positions on some issues, but the fundamental nature of the social revolution he wrought was clear even to its victims. The political perspectives of Tamil Nadu and with it much of India, were altered with a seeming finality by Ramasamy Naicker. (1879-1973)”

- Makers of the Millennium, India 1000 to 2000, Express Publications, Madurai.

 

[KRS]

Dear brother Nara Ji,

RE: Post #261 above on EVR's opinion on 'Karppu'

This is a perfect example of EVR's combining hate and 'wisdom'.

Most of the patriarchal societies, with the way they developed before the stone age have assigned specific roles to women, and depending on the norms of the times have allowed equality and freedom in various spheres of activity at various times, depending on the respective rules of the crown.

Hindu societies are no exception. So, to again cite Sanskrit and ThiruValluvar and berate Hinduism for the supposed lack of women's liberation at a time of industrialization and the western concepts of the role of women, seems to me to be the modus operandi of EVR. Rail against an imaginary evil from the past to create hate and then propose a modern view.

He could have proposed his view without trying to bring down the Hindu and Tamil culture.

Regards,
KRS

 

[renuka]

Sri.KRS, Greetings.



Sri. KRS, Greetings.

I am writing as I usually talk. I always use the word 'please'. While I was practising my trade, F word used to be the conjunction in all my sentences. Possibly had about 3 to 4 F words, still the sentences finished with 'please'!.

Cheers!

Dear Raghy ji,

I cant stop laughing reading this line..there used to be a guy in my class in college who used to be extremely polite even while using any unfavorable word and his sentences used to be full of the word please.

 

[BostonSankara]

One of my favorite Southern American saying is the ubiquitous "I am going to have to ask you to kindly please f-off." .... So ridiculous! Ha! for those who don't know the Southern US is known for being OVERLY polite. :-D

Dear Raghy ji,

I cant stop laughing reading this line..there used to be a guy in my class in college who used to be extremely polite even while using any unfavorable word and his sentences used to be full of the word please.

 

[suraju06]

Renuka,

I cant stop laughing reading this line..there used to be a guy in my class in college who used to be extremely polite even while using any unfavorable word and his sentences used to be full of the word please.

Like when he said "will you please get yourself out?" ?

Cheers.

 

[prasad1]

When you have nothing else to admire than a "adham", your idol is a trash-mountain, you keep yourself in the public eye by writing post. So instead of self respect it become self sustaining movement. One may respect themselves but you loose the respect of others. What a waste of knowledge.

Dear Sri Prasad1 Ji,

Look at my highlighted words. Please tell me whether these are not clearly personal attacks on one of our members - and we know who he is. Do you think that this is civil? Can you not convey your thoughts which is to say that you do not agree with the views of EVR in a more civilized manner? What do you get by this type of posting?

Regards,
KRS

 

[Nara]

When you have nothing else to admire than a "adham", your idol is a trash-mountain, you keep yourself in the public eye by writing post. So instead of self respect it become self sustaining movement. One may respect themselves but you loose the respect of others. What a waste of knowledge.

This is the kind of constant barrage that I have to endure. People who cannot argue on issues make comments like this, about who I am, what I am, what I don't or can't realize, et al. If I point this out I get accused of "double standard".

This forum got rid of several people through this kind of harangue -- yes, yes, they left on their own, I know -- perhaps this kind of leaving "on my own" is what the intent is.

 

[BostonSankara]

Well one thing is for certain... the participants on either side of this argument believe the other side to be worshiping the wrong things in life! I certainly hope no one expects this to be worked out. On the other hand if it ever is worked out someone is up for a Nobel Peace Prize!!!!!

This is the kind of constant barrage that I have to endure. People who cannot argue on issues make comments like this, about who I am, what I am, what I don't or can't realize, et al. If I point this out I get accused of "double standard".

This forum got rid of several people through this kind of harangue -- yes, yes, they left on their own, I know -- perhaps this kind of leaving "on my own" is what the intent is.