[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
-
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
-
From: jai@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
-
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 09:09:23 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Mantra Corporation, USA
-
References: <DKL872.G9C@ecf.toronto.edu> <4chgt1$jmh@news.informix.com> <4csg0v$j89@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4cvial$t70@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4d29tp$6ne@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4df2j8$67g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Reply-To: Dr. Jai Maharaj <jai@eskimo.com>
-
Sender: news@eskimo.com (News User Id)
In the article <4df2j8$67g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
of 16 Jan 1996 02:30:00 UTC,
ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari) wrote:
> GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>> In article <4cvial$t70@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>> Dr. Jai Maharaj <jai@mantra.com> wrote:
>
>>> Again, here is the answer: if there is to a reorganization
>>> at all, then rename the newsgroup soc.religion.vaishnava to
>>> soc.religion to soc.religion.hindu.vaishnav
>>>
>
>> So far most opponents of SRH-reorg have been arguing that the
>> proponents are after Ajay Shah for taking revenge, and i was
>> arguing that we should forget the proposers [since men may
>> come and men may go... etc], and discuss the RFD for its
>> content.
>
>> are you now indicating that you are arguing against SRH-reorg
>> because you want to take revenge for SRV creation. tit-for-tat
>> like argument?
>
> I should not be the spokesperson for Jai. But if I remember
> correctly, Jai had made such a proposal, the very day s.r.v was
> passed. That was much much before s.r.h issue came up.
Dhanyavaad, yes that is correct. As a matter of fact, I
promoted the suggestion that the Vaishnav sub-group be named
soc.religion.hindu.vaishnav throughout the RFD period.
Jai Maharaj <jai@mantra.com> *-=Om Shanti=-*
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%
