[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re:RFD:SRH (No, you are not a nazi.. just inconsistent)

In article <4doiia$kf8@sundog.tiac.net>, Arun Malik <vri@tiac.net> wrote:
>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 
>>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.

[..]
>Now Vivek, why not just admit that you threatened Ajay?



[..]
>Well, at least you avoided calling me a Nazi directly.  
>You've left it up to others to infer it.  
>I am decidedly not a Nazi. 

 thanks for the clarification. but i dont think any one would 
 think vivek even obliquely implied  that you are a nazi. he 
 only pointed out the *inconsistencies* in your stand (s).

 in another post i asked about an *inconsistency* about your 
 views on expression of religious views on non-religous groups.
 hope you will not refuse to answer it saying your quota of 4-5
 posts per thread is exhausted.

 i have one more question of *inconsistency* about your stand on
 naming of srv and vaishnavas.
 
 you seem to argue that  soc.religion.vaishnava must have been
 named as soc.religion.HINDU.vaishnava, since vaishnava in your
 view is subset of hindu.

 then how did you ask: 'if vaishnavas take control of srh,
 is there an interest in creation of sr.hindu_dharma.* ?'

  (1) you seem to imply that 'vaishnavas' becoming moderators is
  same as vaishnavas taking control of  the group.
  (2) did you ask ajay shah ever if he is a vaishnava? (i
  think in a recent post he implied being one -- besides being a
  shivite, shaktha etc)?
  (3) did you propose s.r.hindu_dharma when ajay shah became 
  moderator of srh? (since according to (1) he took control of srh)
  (4) did you ask the proposed moderators if they are vaishnavas?
  (5) did you ask if they also believe in common multiple heritage
  that ajay  shah referred to -- that is, being a vaishnava, shivite
  and shaktha simultaneously?
  (6) when you claimed the multiple moderators proposed can make
  the group being controlled by one section of hindu, why did you 
  not argue that single moderator srh, now, is also  controlled
  by one view? (that one view in this case being a belief in common
  multiple heritage. or, do you argue that there are *no* single
  inheritence views --such as vaishnava only or shiva only-- (if
  you so argue, then how did you say :'if vaishnavas gain control...'?
  please also refer to (5) above, that is, have you ascertained if
  the moderators proposed also belong to the category  of common
  multiple inheritence?

[i am *not*  questioning ajay shah's moderatorship at all, i am just
showing the inconsistencies in your approach]

The fact must be that you did *not* ask the moderators (present 
or proposed) but made rash commentary.

Now it is your turn: *admit* that RFD is well drafted, and you could
not find fault with it. that is why you are after the proponents and
moderators.  (if you can not attack the message, attack the messenger)


G. Sree Ramana Gopal


---------Begin inclusion-------------------

Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
Subject: Re: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
Date: 12 Jan 1996 02:41:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4d4hpn$6jb@babbage.ece.uc.edu>


If the Vaishnavas gain control of soc.religion.hindu, would there be
any interest in submitting an RFD, with Ajay Shah as moderator,
creating the following newsgroups?

soc.religion.hindu_dharma
soc.religion.hindu_dharma.yoga
soc.religion.hindu_dharma.bhajans
soc.religion.hindu_dharma.shivism

It is not acceptable that discussion of Hinduism be controlled by
Vaishnavas.  It would be as if all Christian newsgroups were
controlled by Mormons.

Arun Malik

-- 
-----------------------end inclusion---------------------
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.