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

Inconsistent? No. Re: soc.indian.jammu-kashmir, soc.religion.hindu, rec.music.white-power, soc.religion.vaishnava, humanities.language.sanskrit

gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL  Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana) wrote:

> 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).

You quote from an article which is already several passes into the
"debate" over Vivek's original article.  Tell me, is someone were to
read the following, would they not infer that I'm a Nazi sympathizer,
if not a Nazi?  BTW:  You quoted the paragraph immediately following
these paragraphs, but _conveniently_ left out the charges by Vivek.
And keep in mind that it is Vivek who choose to bring up the  Nazi
newsgroup flamewar in soc.religion.hindu.

----- quotes of material written by Vivek -------

>However, when the proposal for rec.music.white-power came up, not only
>did you not point out its lack of justification, as others had done,
>but you went to great lengths to compliment the proponent on his good
>manners.
<snip>
>Overall, I'm baffled by the amount of energy you've expended to try to
>defeat SRV and now this reorg of SRH, and the amount of energy you've
>expended praising the proponents of the rec.music.white-power RFD. 

----- end quotes -----

As I've already answered these charges at length elsewhere, I'll
simply reply *plonk* in this article.

> 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.

If you believe that stating the following:

---- Begin quote  of material written by Arun Malik ---- 
>And the name of the newsgroup was humanities.language.sanskrit, not
>soc.religion.sanskrit.  Reasons based on religous doctrine limiting
>publication of sanskrit text are not appropriate to that group.  The
>only reason listed below that would be a valid criticism is the lack
>of diacritical marks.  
>
>There is no need for _instruction_ in its use, for it to be handed
>over by a guru, etcetera, as the newsgroup is not a religous
>newsgroup! 

---- End quote  ------

is inconsistent with stating that Mr. Rao's RFD for
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir was biased because he failed to
mention that Kashmir is majority Muslim, but went on at great length
about the historical role of Kashmir in Hindu scripture, then I must
conclude that your religous politics have blinded you to any semblence
of rationality over these issues.

You also either misstated Mr. Rao's position or Mr. Rao is being
inconsistent, not I.  You paraphrased his position as:

-----   quote Gopal -----
'reasons based on religious doctrine is not appropriate for that
non-religion  *culture* group'?[paraphrased].
----- end quote -----

Otherwise, why did Mr. Rao go on and on about Kashmiri historic role
in creation of Hindu religious doctrine?  I have included a quote from
the RFD  so readers can reach their own conclusions over whether Gopal
and Mr. Rao are the ones who are inconsistent and biased.  It is Mr.
Rao who is going on and on about religous doctrine in trying to
justify a soc.culture group.

-----I hereby quote from the RFD:  start quote -----

Jammu and Kashmir has also historically been a center of
Vedic learning; in fact, the very name 'Kashmir' derives from the name
of sage Kashyapa, an ancient stalwart of Vedanta. The Kashmiri
rescension of the Mahaabhaarata is among the most widely accepted for
its authenticity, and Jammu is still regarded as a center for Shaiva
learning. And of course, Ladakh, which for centuries was hidden from
outside eyes, is also known as a center of Buddhist and tantra
learning.

------  End quote  -----

> 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.

Actually I didn't argue for soc.religion.HINDU.vaishnava on those
grounds.  I argued against the *moderation policies* for SRV.  

The closest I came to that was that I did post *one* article which
quoted some scholarly material about the historical origins of
Vaishnavaism and the everyday marriage patterns during that period of
time - with citations and without much commentary.  The article was
ignored, no one responded to it, and I never argued  on those grounds.
If I had, you would have quoted the articles in which I did so.  

(I vaguely recall that I might of mentioned being in favor of
soc.religion.hindu.vaishnava in one other article - out of dozens- but
that was based on a misunderstanding of a Usenet name space issue that
was quickly clarified.) 

In fact I stated that Vaishnavism was a positive development in Hindu
religion, for which I was called "evil".  Remember?

Therefore, as your premise is incorrect, the long list of questions
below are irrelevant.  

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

If all Christian newsgroups were moderated by Mormons, would not other
Christian's object?  Vaishnavas already have their own newsgroup,
soc.religion.vaishnava.  Why this impulse to "reform"
soc.religion.hindu?  Doctrinal questions of multiple inheritances is
beside the point.

>Now it is your turn: *admit* that RFD is well drafted, and you could
>not find fault with it.

Obviously you are failing to read the articles in the various threads.
I did post an article in which I went through the RFD and found faults
with it.  And a proponent replied and stated that he would accept one
of the changes, out of several, that  I recommended.

Please read before posting.  

> that is why you are after the proponents and
>moderators.  (if you can not attack the message, attack the messenger)

When Vivek openly post threats against the current moderator,
shouldn't this _fact_ be brought to the attention of the potential
voters?

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;

A simple two part definition:  
i) intention to inflict loss
ii) in retaliation for a course of action.

Read the article quoted below - by Vivek -  and see if it meets the
two part definition.

The fact that Ajay Shah's opposition to SRV failed to prevent its
passage simply shows that Vivek holds a grudge.  

The fact that the word karma was used and Vivek posted a clever bit of
prose stating that this means that Ajay Shah is *fated* to loss his
position as moderator, and that stating what is inevitable can not be
considered a threat, is a very amusing piece of sophistry - but does
not alter that the passage below is a threat.

And thus the question is raised, should RFDs be a mechanism for
carrying out personal vendettas?


Arun Malik

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