[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh
I've been accused of "threatening" Ajay by Mr. Malik a number of times
now, and hopefully, this post should put the entire matter to rest.
I've answered each of his charges in the past, and it now looks like
he wants to dissect my post line-by-line in order to attempt to prove
his point. I'm more than willing to do so, but I would've hoped that
my last two rebuttals would've put the matter to rest.
In article <4dq3mc$j3n@sundog.tiac.net>, Arun Malik <vri@tiac.net> wrote:
>Vivek carefully cuts out a key phrase in one spot and an entire
>crucial sentence in another, and then claims I've "overlooked"
>something.
Oddly, Mr. Malik has been claiming this "strategic cutting" for quite
a while now, even when it should be clear that if someone were to
actually do as much "strategic cutting" as he claims, it would take
quite a bit more effort to "cut" than to actually write the article. I
remember one example while I wanted to shorten a lengthy paragraph, so
I left in the first three lines, put an ellipsis, and left in the last
3 lines. Mr. Malik had a huff about that one, claiming all sorts of
things. I didn't understand what he was ranting about, until I read
the lines while ignoring the ellipsis. It turned out the effect was
rather comical, and had I done it intentionally, I would've patted
myself on the back for it. However, it was most unintentional, and
from the ellipsis, it was very clear that lines had been cut.
But, just so Mr. Malik can feel vindicated in some manner, I won't
cut _anything_ he wrote in this post.
>vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) wrote:
>
>>In article <4doiia$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.
You forgot to mention (once again) that I'd put in an ellipsis once
again. In other words, those "strategic cuts" have always been shown
by me.
>It should read "with regard to his stands on soc.religion.vaishnava
>AND REC.MUSIC.WHITE-POWER" .
I believe that I also deleted quite a few more lines with that
ellipsis - standard practice, since I gave a little context, and
anyone following this discussion WOULD KNOW WHAT IT WAS ABOUT.
>
>>[...]
>
>>|> 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:
I have been pointing out those inconsistencies for quite some time.
It wasn't just that you spent so much time praising the neo-Nazis, but
more importantly, that the things for which you criticized the SRV
proponents were the SAME things for which you PRAISED the neo-Nazis.
>
>--- 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,
Have you been following that discussion? It might very well pass, and
I specifically asked a question before about whether newsgroups have
been defeated by opposition to their ideas. Guess what the answer was
- never. So, if history is any indicator, this group just might pass.
>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.
That still doesn't explain your inconsistency - after all, why did you
claim that SRV would be used for "cult recruiting" (when you had
absolutely no proof), but at the same time, you seemed quite
nonchalant about evidence showing that the neo-Nazis _are_ recruiting
using Usenet?
>
>>|> 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.
I'm quite willing to reach a compromise. This seems like the most
ridiculous argument you've used yet on this discussion - in a
compromise, both sides are _expected_ to show a little flexibility,
yet when I am willing to show flexibility, you instead charge that
this shows I'm not committed. Can you for once look at things from a
reasonable standpoint, and see that all of these actions make sense if
you assume that the proponents are genuine?
>
><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.
Given that your thrust was the use of the word "threat", I addressed
that. I am now going to show you why your next charge is also totally
baseless.
>You "conveniently" cut out the part of the
>article you wrote in which you declared your intention to do
^^^^ note this word
>something:
>
> "and they would see to it that your politics don't interfere with
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>religion any more."
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
You claim that I declared _my_ intention to do something, but look at
what you've underlined - it uses the word _they_. Now, given that you
looked up the word threat in the dictionary, I'm sure you can also
tell me the difference between the words "they and "we", right? If I
had any intention to threaten Ajay, why would I have used the word
"they" instead of we in that line -- that line itself shows the
fallacy of your entire stand. I think this is the last line of the
"threat" that you've analyzed, and I've now shown you how every line
fails to support your claim.
You also failed to take into consideration my statement below, about
how your entire claim was predicated on a condition that failed to
occur, making that entire post invalid.
>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.
I've shown you in three different ways why you are totally wrong. At
some point, Mr. Malik, you should sit down and ask yourself why you
are doing this, and that's why I asked if your praising of the
neo-nazis was reasonable in comparison to your opposition of
SRV. That's also why I pointed out your big lie about the Vaishnavas
"controlling" the Hindu newsgroup, and I notice you _still_ haven't
answered that one. Please do, or admit that your post was an
unreasonable scare tactic not based on the facts at all, Mr. Malik.
As far as "travesty of an RFD", please, by all means show me what you
find unreasonable about the RFD itself. Note that people on SRH who
have been not at all associated with SRV have expressed their support
for the RFD. Why is it that they, who we can reasonably consider
neutral, seem to find the RFD reasonable and good, while you deride it
by calling it a travesty?
Oh, and Mr. Malik - I believe I've addressed every issue you brought
up so far, and I haven't cut a single line from your post. I would
appreciate it if you would address the issues I raise, since it seems
that most of your "replies" consist of some tangential lecture,
ignoring most of the points I've made, especially the one regarding
your praising the neo-Nazis for the same things for which you
condemned the SRV proponents. You have, for example, totally ignored
the point I raised before about mailing lists and proponents gathering
support for their newsgroup. Would you be so kind as to clarify your
ever-shifting position on that?
-Vivek
Sat Jan 20 13:15:44 CST 1996
>
>Arun Malik
>
>
>
>
