[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Improvement of Hindu newsgroups is the goal
vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>>Overall, I'm baffled by the amount of energy you've expended to try to
>>defeat SRV and now this reorg of SRH, and the amount of energy you've
If the energy Vivek spent in getting together srv and reorganizing srh is
justified, so is opposing it. Not that I am/was against the formation of srv.
In fact I voted YES for the formation of srv.
>Vivek is easily baffled.
>Vivek, can you say karma?
>Arun Malik
>
>---------------- start quote -------------------
>Re: Fishy E-Mail: vote against soc.religion.vaishnava
>From: vivek@medea.cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai)
>Date: 1995/11/13
>
>MessageID: 488lua$mk7@larry.rice.edu#1/1
>Therefore, I would hope that peopl of good conscience would get
>quite angry with you if you scuttle a newsgroup for your political
>desires, and they would see to it that your politics don't interfere
>with religion any more.
>That is what you will have to contend with as the result of your
>actions.
>Can you say karma?
>-Vivek
This is clearly a threat. It cannot be construed as anything else. Please, guys
can we forget what has already happened and work towards a reasonable solution?
Well, I don't know about others, atleast I don't want the talk
group degenerating into yet another sci. One can't discuss anything in peace.
I also request Ajay Shah to reach some sort of compromise, but get rid of the
talk group and the info group. If Ajay puts out some sort of counter-RFD, then
the Srirangam group can look through it and voice their objections, if any.
I am wondering if the current proponents will be satisfied if there are multiple
moderators and preserve the current structure of srh. Also the guidelines for
moderators could be set up after both sides discuss. Please voice your opinions
(both sides). As far as the present RFD goes, I am in opposition (for reasons I
gave) though.
If I remember right, Raj Bhatnagar also voiced the opinion that some say in the
moderation policies can be given to the current proponents. That sounds quite
reasonable to me.
Ramakrishnan.
--
That it does not see in that state is because, though seeing then, it does not
see; for the vision of the witness can never be lost, because it is imperish-
able. But, there is not that second thing separate from it which it can see.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad - IV.iii.23
