[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
-
To: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
-
Subject: Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
-
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
-
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 1996 13:27:44 -0600 (CST)
-
Organization: http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html
-
References: <4d4hpn$6jb@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4df2kl$67s@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4di8mn$fq4@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4djcbg$8la@larry.rice.edu> <4dmbif$b7v@sundog.tiac.net> <4dmhnn$15o@larry.rice.edu> <4doiia$kf8@sundog.tiac.net>
-
Return-Receipt-To: vivek@rice.edu
In article <4doiia$kf8@sundog.tiac.net>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) writes:
|> vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
|>
|> >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
[...]
|> And Vivek, I ANSWERED your charges of inconsistency. I am including
Your "answer" consisted of "I'm a Hindu", but that doesn't explain
why you opposed srVaishnava on the _grounds_ that you did.
If you had opposed it simply because it didn't have Hindu in the
name, that would've been one thing, but you didn't - you opposed
it on entirely different grounds, related to "cults" and
"recruiting", and that's why I pointed out your entirely different
stand when it came to the neo-Nazi newsgroup.
That's why I don't believe your "answer" at all - it doesn't explain
those actions.
|> After I posted that rebuttal you went ahead and repeated your charges.
You posted a rebuttal, and then you posted a second rebuttal, and
that's when I explained once again why your rebuttals seem like
so much hot air.
|> The "compromise" proposed was to implement the RFD without even
|> bothering to take a vote.
This is, of course, incorrect, since the compromise does leave
out quite a bit that is in the RFD. One hint - the info group
goes entirely. If you compare the compromise plan to the RFD,
you'll see that the compromise plan cuts out quite a bit from the
RFD.
|> And again Vivek you reply with large cut and paste paragraphs from the
|> RFD and never address the point I am making.
I did reply to your point - it was in the original paragraphs
I'd written before and after the excerpts from the RFD. Well,
at least this is progress - you're no longer claiming that answer
came from the FAQ.
|> READ the following sentences from the article I quote above.
|>
|> They ARE a THREAT.
I will prove to you, using your own post, that it is not a
threat.
|> >|> That is what you will have to contend with as the result of your
|> >|> actions.
|> >|>
|> >|> Can you say karma?
|>
|> Definition of threat from Random House Dictionary of the English
|> Language:
|>
|> threat: 1) a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict
|> punishment, injury, death, or loss on someone in retaliation for, or
|> conditionally upon some action or course;
|>
|> Now, you say "as the result of your actions". And the dictionary
|> definition of threat states "in retaliation for .. some action" .
You missed the first part of the definition - it has to be a
declaration of an intention to do something. You notice I used
the word karma, and you've been oh-so-cutely harping upon it,
but you missed what it means entirely. Karma is inevitable. If
you were to kill someone, for example, I wouldn't have to "threaten"
you with anything - I could state what would happen to you as a
result of your actions, and if we both believe in karma, neither
you or I can affect the outcome.
I am quite glad that you posted that definition, because now
you've given me the perfect opportunity to show exactly why that
statement is most definitely _not_ a threat.
It is, according to a religious belief system, a fatalistic
statement of fact, but that's not even applicable here, because
if you recall the first part of my note, it said "if you scuttle
a newsgroup...", but SRV was not scuttled, and the campaign against
it led by Ajay failed.
So, that entire post essentially becomes null and void, since
it was predicated on a condition that failed to occur.
|> Now Vivek, why not just admit that you threatened Ajay?
Now that I've proven to you that your "threat" claims don't hold
water, would you be so kind as to finally admit that you are wrong?
|> He is facing the _loss_ of his freedom to moderate soc.religion.hindu
|> in a manner he feels is most appropriate for the advancement of hindu
|> dharma.
If you are stating that he won't have free reign over SRH, then that
is true, because the RFD does set guidelines for the moderator, but
I don't see how this is a valid case against the RFD at all. Everyone
has rules to live by, and given that the RFD clearly states that the
moderator is not above the rules, then this "loss" that you claim
applies equally to all of the moderators.
After all, the group should be for the _readers_, not for the moderator.
I'll pass on the opportunity to comment on each line of your original
rebuttal. Suffice it to say that I don't buy the following arguments:
- your claim of opposing SRV only because you were a Hindu
- your claim that attacking McVay's arguments (without providing
better ones), was an intentional plan to "help" McVay
-Vivek
Fri Jan 19 13:27:06 CST 1996
