[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
-
From: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
-
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 07:29:51 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Ad Astra
-
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> <4dorb6$67p@larry.rice.edu>
Vivek carefully cuts out a key phrase in one spot and an entire
crucial sentence in another, and then claims I've "overlooked"
something.
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>In article <4doiia$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
First strategic cut. I've capitilized the cut phrase.
It should read "with regard to his stands on soc.religion.vaishnava
AND REC.MUSIC.WHITE-POWER" .
>[...]
>|> 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.
The actual charge against me was that Vivek was "baffled" by the
amount of time I spent defending Nazis in *comparison* to the amount
of time I spent opposing SRV. My answer was:
--- Start quote ----
I read the first 30 or 40 articles posted to that thread, responded to
a couple, and then stopped reading it altogether. Why?
Because no one needs convincing to vote against them - so there is no
need for me to spend my time arguing against them as dozens of others
have already more than adequately flamed them - and their proposal is
*certain* to be defeated. Whereas the outcome of the proposed SRH
re-organization is still in doubt.
If a CFV is posted, I will vote against them.
---- End quote ----
In other words, once it became obvious that rec.music.white-power was
going down to a crushing defeat, it was not necessary for me to spend
time following that thread when there are TWO other threads in
news.groups that are ongoing and for which the vote is still
uncertain: soc.religion.hindu and soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir.
>|> 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.
Yes, you're quite willing to drop the info group, thus revealing that
your principal reason for the RFD was to break Ajay Shah.
<snip>
And heres where the MAJOR cut took place.
>|> 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.
I didn't miss anything. You "conveniently" cut out the part of the
article you wrote in which you declared your intention to do
something:
"and they would see to it that your politics don't interfere with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
religion any more."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now are you willing to admit that you threatened Ajay Shah?
<snip>
>It [karma] 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.
No Vivek. It simply reinforces the fact that you hold a grudge. Even
after Ajay Shah lost, you intend to humiliate him by dragging him and
SRH through this travesty of an RFD.
Arun Malik
