@LakshmiNarayanan That meta post is pointing out the bias and hypocrisy of others and I am sure you also agree with it, don't you?

@ChinmaySarupria I agree - The bias and hypocrisy of the advaitic defaultists is abundantly clear from the way the user is being targeted in this witch hunt.

@LakshmiNarayanan Then post your views on that meta post, other users have done it, if you think you have proof of what you're saying then post there.

@ChinmaySarupria I don't want to legitimise that witch hunt by posting any response to it.

@LakshmiNarayanan which simply means that you have no proof to back up your claims, so those who have like me can talk on this matter but if you don't have any proofs then I guess you cannot call someone biased.

@ChinmaySarupria Yes, that's one way to juggle words to form a sentence but bear in mind - I have already given evidence of advaita defaultism (that is rampant on this site) which is why your guess/conclusion is wrong. My not wanting to legitimise a witch hunt is a different matter in that I don't think that user is being targeted for bias but rather for his beliefs - don't conflate the two different issues to create arbitrary conclusions.

@LakshmiNarayanan "evidence of advaita defaultism (that is rampant on this site)" Prove it. "I don't think that user is being targeted for bias but rather for his beliefs" That's the issue, your conclusion is far from truth, many people including me have given proof on the "sectarian agenda" issue, if you have proof, post it. If you don't have then that simply means you have no proof. Accept it.