[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
Let's set the record straight - I am not claiming that Mr. Malik
is a Nazi at all. I am, however, pointing out his inconsistencies
with regard to his stands on soc.religion.vaisnava and
rec.music.white-power, and pointing out that he's trying to use
the same fear tactics that he used during SRV to try to attack
the proponents of the SRH reorg.
He opposed the sr.vaishnava group very vocally claiming that it would
be used as a cult recruiting tool, despite the fact that the group
does not reject based on content. He further alleged that most of the
people involved with the RFD were secretly cultists, although they
would deny it when asked.
In comparison, it has been shown that the white power folks _do_
want to recruit on Usenet, and Mr. Malik seems to have no problem
with that at all. All I ask for is a consistent stand.
When SRV was proposed, Mr. Malik put much effort in trying to refute
traffic assumptions about alt.religion.vaisnava, although he now
doesn't even bother with traffic-related issues for the white-power
group.
In the soc.religion.hindu debate, his latest trick was to claim
that the reorg would mean that the group would be "controlled" by
Vaishnavas. Earlier, Mr. Malik kept posting about the proposed
moderators and their backgrounds, and I encouraged him to read the
archives of alt.hindu and soc.religion.hindu.
He apparently did not, because those archives would've shown that
the moderators do _not_ fit his preconceived ideas. However, he
now tries to use his lies to create fear about a "takeover" of
the Hindu newsgroup.
The article below is more of the same.
In article <4dmbif$b7v@sundog.tiac.net>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) writes:
|> Vivek Pai carefully takes two or three lines from an article I posted
|> to the debate on rec.music.white-power, spins them with the force of a
|> tornado, and then claims to be baffled over my "adulations" of the
|> Nazis which he then posts to soc.religion.hindu!
It wasn't just two or three lines - it was the fact that you didn't
speak out against the tactics the white power folks, even though they
were doing exactly what you ranted about before. Here was the perfect
opportunity for you to rant, and to be correct for a change.
|> I've already refuted this demented interpretation once, and I'll do so
|> once _again_, and then I will stop. First, to understand the intent
|> and scope of the article it is necessary to read the 30-40 articles
|> posted immediately preceding and following the article I posted. The
|> context of the ongoing debate over rec.music.white-power is . . .
Oh, the dramatic tension...
|> Actually, as I type this, I suddenly realize that this is exactly what
|> Vivek wants. If a post another refutation, he'll just twist what I
|> say again and again,
I am more than willing to provide copies of the two articles of yours
which I find hypocritical. I even mentioned their messageIDs before.
|> thus distracting people from the article I quote
|> below, the THREAT Vivek made against Ajay Shah for his support of
|> soc.religion.hindu.vaishnava rather than soc.religion.vaishnava.
Not really - I've answered that "threat" a number of times. Let's
see exactly what that "threat" says - I'm more than happy to expand
upon it.
|> Vivek's standard response to this article is to dodge the main point
|> of this article by cutting and pasting large sections of his biased
|> "FAQ" without ever refuting the charge that the SRH re-org is
|> motivated by a desire to punish Ajay Shah.
This shows that you don't even bother to read what I write. The
FAQ is available at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
and it doesn't include the answer I gave last time. That answer
came from an earlier posting of mine in response to the last time
you made the same allegations.
Does the "threat" speak of "punishing"? No - it says that politics,
especially personal politics, should not interfere with the functioning
of a religious newsgroup.
I'll enclose my reply at the end of this note, and it'll show that
I quite adequately addressed your claims of a "threat" - in that reply,
you'll see where I explain how the reorg RFD specifies what a moderator
may and may not do.
|> The standard response to this is that Ajay Shah can always go ahead
|> and join the list of moderators selected by Vivek et al. This clever
|> political ploy neglects the fact that the other proposed moderators
|> can then vote Ajay out the day after the SRH reorganization passes.
This is the type of garbage I referred to earlier. Before, you claimed
that a group of people were secretly hiding their "cult affiliation",
even though a simple check would've shown that they quite publically
have argued against the religious beliefs of that "cult".
Now, you are suggesting that the proposed moderators would act in
unison to kick out Ajay? Why - do you have any reason to believe
this? Has Ajay suggested anything along these lines? Have you seen
any articles from them showing them to be less than desirable?
You once again recklessly make allegations which you cannot
substantiate. You operate by innuendo, and you never provide facts.
You are, in effect, the exact opposite of what you claim to be.
The moderators are known to be men of good character, and even
the people who claim this move is a "vendetta" have not spoken
a word against them. You, however, suggest that they have some
ulterior motive and that only you are privy to? That is absurd.
Ajay Shah, Raj Bhatnagar, and Nachiketa Tiwari were all asked if
they had any problems with the proposed moderators. Not one of them
suggested that there was anything wrong with the people named.
You, however, "know the truth", is it?
|> BTW, Gopal, can't you see the human element behind this proposal? If
|> you were a moderator of a newsgroup, working hard to advance hindu
|> dharma, and immediately after you posted an article supporting SRHV
|> instead of SRV, a group of people who were voracious supporters of SRV
|> suddenly post an RFD to re-organize the newsgroup you were
|> moderating, would you not believe that it was motivated by vengeance?
|> Particularly when they state this openly - as in the article I quote
|> below. Would you trust them?
Your facts are wrong, as usual.
First, as Ken Stuart pointed out, one of the articles claimed to
be proof of the "vendetta" showed that the desire to make
soc.religion.hindu more useful existed _before_ the incidents
you mention.
Second, there was a very long and public pre-RFD phase, and a
search of news.groups would show that. There was no "sudden"
anything, and Ajay was even given the RFD well before it was
posted publically.
Third, the article you quote below (it is mine) has been adequately
explained by me a number of times, yet you seem to have missed
all of the explanations. How is that?
|> Improvement of SRH is simply a convenient smokescreen to punish Ajay
|> Shah for daring to disagree with the supporters of SRV.
There were around 150 people who voted against SRV. You don't
see any of them being "punished", do you? If this "punishment"
idea were the case, why are other people backing the idea of
the reorganization, or at least some change to soc.religion.hindu?
Why is it that the proponents have tried to reach a compromise
solution which _avoid_ a CFV? Why is it that others have spoken
out in favor of reaching a compromise solution?
You claim that this is "punishment", as usual, is not borne out
by the facts of the matter.
|> Currently articles are clearing promptly, and I am sure that, given
|> this brutal attempt to punish Ajay, that he will carefully make sure
|> that this continues.
Here's something interesting - one of the goals of the reorg was
to try to get articles to clear faster, and that was one of the
reasons behind having multiple moderators.
So, it seems that you view this reason as important enough to
comment on it. Thank you for the backhanded compliment.
|> If, at some time in the future, the number of
|> articles posted to SRH becomes too much for a single moderator to
|> handle, then Ajay, after consultation with the readers of SRH, can
|> choose a co-moderator.
Tell me, Arun - why is the time between moderation events so much
shorter now than it has been for the 3 months before the RFD?
|> Not only Nazis want to deny freedom to others. By punishing Ajay Shah
|> for expressing his personal opinion about the correct name for a new
|> newsgroup, Vivek et al. also wish to deny freedom of expression.
I'm sure that you realize a thread is automatically considered dead
when you drag in the "Nazi argument". *plonk*
However, I'll be nice. I'll leave in your claimed "threat", and
I'll add my answer to it at the end. If you check the FAQ, available
at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
you'll see that this text does not come from the FAQ at all.
|> ---------------- 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
|>
|> ----------------- End quote ----------------------------------------
Here's what I had written in answer to Arun's charges regarding
the above "threat". I hope that this time, Arun, you actually
read what I've written, because then you will see that your
"threat" claim is hogwash:
The proposed RFD has statements which try to make srh.moderated
focus on religion, rather than politics. Obviously, in some cases,
politics and religion will overlap, and when that happens, the
RFD also has a statement which explains what the criteria are
for accepting articles dealing with politics.
Specifically, here are the revelant sentences from the RFD:
" Political announcements, hortatory articles, calls-to-action,
reminders of past misdeeds, special-format postings, etc., will be
rejected, as will postings that espouse hate. Moderators will
discourage political discussions, but will permit postings that
mention politics, as long as such are of an interest to a
non-political audience."
If a newsgroup is to be a religious newsgroup, and not a
political propaganda newsgroup, then those conditions seem
quite reasonable.
The proposed RFD also has statements which govern the behavior
of the moderators. Specifically, the RFD treats the moderator
as a peer of the reader, not as the ruler or dictator. As such,
the moderators are not to "throw their weight around", and cannot
use their moderator position in arguments.
After all, if you believe that the newsgroup is to serve a
readership, rather than serve the needs of the moderator, these
guidelines seem quite reasonable. Here is the section from
the RFD:
"No person serving as moderator of the SRH.* groups may claim status as
such in any message except communication in his capacity as moderator
(such as with authors of postings to SRH.* groups), and in
administrative postings to said groups that relate to the newsgroup(s)
themselves. Specifically, no moderator may use the official
moderator's account for any purpose except performance of moderation
duties. Any claim to status in matters unrelated to the SRH.*
newsgroups, or misuse of the official moderation account for any
purpose other than performance of moderation duties, will be
considered grounds for automatic dismissal."
Once again, this seems quite reasonable, and the 4 proposed moderators
have agreed to these terms. I wholeheartedly support both of these
parts of the RFD, and both of them seem reasonable to me. I would
hope that they seem reasonable to a great number of people. If anyone
has objections to these parts of the RFD, I would be more than happy
to discuss them.
-Vivek
Fri Jan 19 09:46:11 CST 1996
