[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH: Answers to Vivek's questions (Was: Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: SRH: Answers to Vivek's questions (Was: Re: I am NOT a Nazi . . . Sigh)
-
From: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
-
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 06:27:40 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Ad Astra
-
References: <4d4hpn$6jb@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4doiia$kf8@sundog.tiac.net> <4dorb6$67p@larry.rice.edu> <4dq3mc$j3n@sundog.tiac.net> <4dueq5$giv@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
Summary: I address the shortcomings of the RFD directly and answer
the questions Vivek asked.
--------------
I've cut the prior article down to just the 8 questions Vivek asked
me within the text of the article - not so as to obfuscate the
context - but to make it clear that I've answered every question
Vivek has asked. This is a very long article. I include Vivek's
article at the end so that if I've failed to answer a question, you
the reader will be able to mention this to me. However, I do feel
that the length of this reply shows that I have made a good faith
effort to answer these questions - yet again.
It is my position that I have answered many of these questions earlier
and if Vivek is reading the articles posted to the thread he should
remember, but instead tries to create the impression that I've failed
to answer the questions. In order to rebut this, I'm including the
headers for the articles in which I answered the questions.
It is also my position that Vivek takes comments out of context - and
so in order to reintroduce the context, I will have to quote the
article to which I responded to clarify the intent of my remarks.
I've reordered and numbered the questions, to facilitate discussion,
and in order to address the most important issue first, the RFD - and
I've left the Nazi stuff for the end of the article so that those who
want to avoid that rehash can.
QUESTION 1:
Vivek asked:
>As far as "travesty of an RFD", please, by all means show me what you
>find unreasonable about the RFD itself.
I did so on Tuesday, Dec. 18th, but I've decided to quote in full Mr
Rao's reply on December 20th, 1995 in order to move the discussion of
the RFD along.
By the Way: Why don't you mention that I've already done so? Or are
you hoping that since that original article has expired at many sites
that people might believe that I haven't ever bothered to address
shortcomings in the RFD?
When Mr. Rao posted his reply to me, he asked other readers to comment
on the changes I suggested. No one did - and the discussion on the
ponts raised in my article died out. I've decided to amplify on
those remarks by adding additional remarks.
This additional material will be within brackets as follows:
{Arun: additional comments } .
------- Start quote ------
Path:
sundog.tiac.net!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news..ece..uc..edu!babbage..ece..uc..edu!srh
From: Shrisha Rao <Shrisha.Rao@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
Date: 20 Dec 1995 22:31:14 GMT
Organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of
organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of
being organized.
Lines: 266
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4ba2ri$ir9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <818964254.20578@uunet.uu.net>
<4b5ai5$hq7@sundog.tiac.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Keywords: Vedanta
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar
Please note: Some discussion about this has appeared on
soc.religion.hindu, and if you are interested in knowing what is said
there, you may wish to follow that newsgroup as well, for the duration
of this RFD discussion. If you post any replies there, please do make
sure to post them to news.groups as well, for the good of all
concerned. Thanks.
In article <4b5ai5$hq7@sundog.tiac.net>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
wrote:
> I've only left in the portions of the RFD I wish to comment on.
>
> shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>
> >Moderation policy:
>
> >Each moderator will serve until he resigns voluntarily, or is
> >dismissed by an unanimous vote of the other moderators. New moderators
> >will be appointed as needed, taking into account the sentiments of the
> >SRH.* readership, by a unanimous vote of all moderators, or by a
>
> "taking into account the sentiments of the SRH.* readership"
>
> This needs to be spelt out more clearly. Since you state that the
> currently serving moderators will announce their candidate for the
> new moderator to the SRH. * and plan to allow one week for comments,
> you should set some sort of number for retracting the candidate if
> enough people object. Would the objections of 10 or 20, ...
> people be enough to derail a nomination?
I suppose it would. However, I'd be wary of defining a figure of, say
10, and saying "if ten people object, then the proposed new moderator
is to be considered unacceptable." As you are aware, there is no real
way on UseNet of telling people apart, and one or two people setting
up trolls could seem like ten. On the other hand, if we _don't_ say
ten are required, and in fact only one or two people object to a new
proposed moderator but do so intelligently, then it is quite likely
the moderators will take the hint.
Thus, for both these reasons: that a few dishonest people can have too
much influence even if they have nothing of substance to say, and that
a few honest people will have less influence than necessary even if
they are cogent, such a condition is not likely to be useful. If you
think otherwise, please do clarify.
{Arun: additional comments: State that when " taking into account the
sentiments of the SRH.* readership, there is no minimum number of
objections that are needed to reject a proposed moderator, however,
the opposition of ten_ regular_ posters (where regular shall mean at
least 4 articles in the last two months) to SRH shall be sufficient to
reject a nominee for position of moderator."}
> <snip> Reasons for rejecting a post:
>
> >1> completely irrelevant postings, and off-topic responses;
> >2> postings with ad hominem attacks;
> >3> personals and personal messages;
> >4> postings with large ASCII graphics;
>
> Just how large a signature file can someone have? 4 lines? 10 lines?
I believe a limit of four or five lines is considered good Netiquette.
However, I am not aware that any moderation policy I have ever seen
specifies a limit of a certain number of lines, for the signature. If
others know of such, and feel this would be a useful addition, it can
certainly be added.
{Arun: additional comments: State that sigs should be a maximum of
six lines, and recommend four lines.}
> >5> special-format files, such as binaries, MIME, BinHex, etc.;
> >6> grossly profane or indecent writings;
>
> Indecent? Would discussion of the Kama Sutra be banned?
No, it would not. I don't think the Kama Sutra is indecent in and of
itself, although I do not consider it very interesting either. As I'm
sure you are aware, the Mahaabhaarata, the Old Testament, and other
scriptures sacred to some, contain descriptions of sexual organs,
activity, etc., that rival anything written in the Kama Sutra, Lady
Chatterley's Lover, or whatever text is considered indecent. Although
I firmly believe there is such a thing as indecency, I don't know if
it can be rigorously defined, and would think indecency is in the
approach rather than in the content.
> I think indecency is a rather Victorian concept. If you mean
> references to sexual organs/activities not grounded in a religous
> context but as part of an ad hominem attack, say so. Although in that
> case, such language would be covered under item 2 above. However, if
> someone does want to discuss the religous significance of certain
> sexual practices in detail, it should not be excluded.
> "grossly profane" differs slightly in meaning from "profanity".
>
> If you mean, "profanity" you'll hear no objection on my part.
>
> But if you mean "profane", i.e, attacking a specific religous belief
> or practice, when does such an attack "cross the line" from vigorous
> religous debate and achieve the status of a "grossly profane"
> utterance?
{Arun: additional material: I don't believe the issue of "profane"
was addressed in the answer below. It is my belief that moderator's
should not pass judgement on whether something is "profane". Let the
readers offer feedback on such issues. }
I would say even "profanity" has the same problem. It is certainly
possible for someone to use words that are considered unprintable,
etc., in decent discourse. At the very least, it is certainly the case
that many such words have synonyms that are not considered indecent. A
gynaecologist would, in the course of describing his field, use such
words, and be considered perfectly decent. So I would say that the
place where the "line" is crossed, is hard to pinpoint; I at least
know of no reasonably short definition for it, that would help
identify all instances as "profane," or "not profane," in a meaningful
way. At the same time, not having any restriction at all, would mean
that _no_ posting can ever be rejected for indecency, which is also
unacceptable.
Thus, I would leave it to the judgement of the moderators, to settle
on a level of decency. Having read their postings for a while, and
having exchanged mail with them, I am quite satisfied that they will
do well. The provision for having rejected articles overseen by
another moderator also means that at least two moderators must accept
that a certain aspect of a posting is indecent, before it is rejected.
> >7> badly formatted postings (lines over 80 characters long, entire
> > paragraphs written in capital letters, too many blank spaces, etc.);
> >8> postings violative of Netiquette, such as discussions of ongoing RFDs;
>
> And here's where you are getting back at the current moderator.
No, we're not getting back at anybody anywhere. A clear moderation
policy is considered desirable, and that's what we have tried to
achieve. The points apply no less to the proponents themselves, as to
anyone else. Criminal laws are not considered as being discrimination
against people who commit crime, because they apply uniformly to all,
and it is only the case that some people suffer under those laws
because of their own actions. So also, all of these provisions have
the a quite-equal effect on all, tho perhaps some will have to correct
themselves to a greater degree in order to fit them.
{Arun: additional material: The willingnesss to draw an analogy
between Ajay Shah's actions to those of criminals breaking the law
shows why Ajay and others might have had reason not to "trust" the
motivations of the proponents.}
> >14> articles with excessive quoting -- those that:
> > i) quote all or much of a previous long posting only to make a short
> > comment;
> > ii) quote long passages from copyrighted works, without extensive
> > commentary as required for fair use.
>
> And here is where you are getting back at Jai Maharaj for his posts of
> the Gita.
Well, there are many other instances not by him, as well.
> >In addition, material whose copyright is not owned by the poster, or
> >specifically given to the poster by its owner, may, at the moderator's
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >discretion, not be accepted for posting, to avoid any possible charges
> >against moderators of complicity in copyright infringement.
>
> An exception should be made for the case when an author or translator
> places a copy of their work in the public domain, or explicitly states
> that it may be copied for non-comercial use. In such cases, your
> rationale about avoiding charges of copyright infringement would not
> apply.
Quite obviously, in that instance:
1> Another moderator could pass the posting.
2> The poster could inform the author of the carte blanche permission
that exists.
Note that "specifically given to the poster" does not mean
"specifically given to the poster in a personal communication." Your
example is also a case of "specific" permission being given to all who
would use the material for non-commercial purposes.
{Arun: additional material: So why not qualify the phrase
"specifically given to the poster" to include cases where permission
is given to all who would use the material for non-commercial
purposes, i.e., why not indicate a willingness to change this in the
next version of the RFD? This would have the effect of allowing Dr.
Jai Maharaj to continue posting the Gita as the author of the
translation *has* stated it may be distributed for non-commercial
reasons.}
> Otherwise, just think. Jai Maharaj is going to have to dig up a turn
> of the century translation of the Gita. You might find it amusing,
> but why perpetuate 90 year old translation errors?
Why perpetuate any translation errors at all? Would a 90-year old
translation be restricted by copyright? -- I wonder. I think that
would depend upon whether or not the translator has been dead for 60
years. At least in India (and probably in the U.K. and other
Commonwealth nations), the law is that material is copyrighted by the
author during his lifetime, and by his successors for 60 years
thereafter.
> >If a moderator is of the opinion that a posting submitted for
> >soc.religion.hindu.info is more appropriate on SRH.moderated, or vice
> >versa, he will inform the author of the posting of this, and offer the
> >latter the choice of either withdrawing the posting, or having it
> >posted appropriately.
>
> The moderator should also give the reason why. In the unitarian-univ
> FAQ file, the corresponding policy reads:
>
> !Moderators will only return submissions that violate this charter.
> !Any returned article will have an explanation attached to it about
> !which charter provision was violated.
Good point. This will be added.
> >In case an author/poster willfully and repeatedly submits clearly
> >inappropriate material to hassle readers or moderators, the moderators
> >may, by a unanimous vote, announce that person banned from the
> >moderated groups for a certain period.
>
> The length of the "certain period" please. And perhaps an escalating
> punishment, spelt out, rather than left to the vagaries of chance?
>
> For example:
>
> 1st offence: one week
> 2nd offence: one month
> 3rd and subsequent offences: 3 months
That again is dicey. I would like to hear other comments. Do people
feel the length should be spelled out? I personally do not feel that
the moderation policy should also include specific penal code
provisions for violations, and think the ban will never be used (it
has been made almost impossible to use, since I don't think any group
of three or over will ever achieve unanimity in banning someone). The
provision exists only as a psychological deterrent to keep people from
abusing moderators. However, as I said, others may have different
views, which should be stated.
{Arun: additional comments: And I don't like the open ended nature of
this penalty. Someone would risk punishment not knowing what the
penalty is and whether to risk incurring it. It also means that if
two different people are penalized with different length "banishments"
that charges of bias could be made against the moderators.}
> One week might not seem like much for a first offence, but the "shock"
> of being banned from a newsgroup, for even a short period of time,
> will probably prevent continued "transgressions" against the
> moderation policy.
Sounds reasonable, but some may think it is either too light or too
heavy, or that the steps are not rightly spaced, etc. Are there any
moderated groups that spell something like this out?
> >No person serving as moderator of the SRH.* groups may claim status as
> >such in any message except communication in his capacity as moderator
> >(such as with authors of postings to SRH.* groups), and in
> >administrative postings to said groups that relate to the newsgroup(s)
> >themselves. Specifically, no moderator may use the official
> >moderator's account for any purpose except performance of moderation
> >duties. Any claim to status in matters unrelated to the SRH.*
> >newsgroups, or misuse of the official moderation account for any
> >purpose other than performance of moderation duties, will be
> >considered grounds for automatic dismissal.
>
> Again a subtle attack on the current moderator. Moderators should be
> able to comment on RFDs that are relevant to their group and be able
> to state that they are the moderator as that does give their opinion
> added weight in a debate. Perhaps this should be the only exception
> to the policy above, but it is a reasonable one.
I think giving "added weight" is exactly the thing some would like to
avoid. If a moderator wishes to state his own personal view about
something, that's fine. Let him. However, the "added weight" of status
implies that (1) the moderator speaks for a majority of his
newsgroup's readers/posters; (2) any views contrary to his are more
likely to earn rejection in that group. I believe both these are to be
avoided.
> I'd like to close by stating that it would do a great deal to mend
> ruffled feelings if you were to go ahead and state that if the
> current moderator ever wishes joint the group of moderators at any
> time in the future, he will be allowed to do so.
I have, in a message, made clear to the current moderator that if he
wishes to change his mind and accept our offer, any time upto the CFV,
he is most welcome to do so. This is not a political move, for the
simple reason that if it were, then it would be extremely messy to
have him accept and then go back on our word. Thus, a good way to find
out if we are sincere or not, is for Sri Shah to accept the offer. The
reason I cannot go further and make a promise for any indefinite time
in the future, is that I will have no say over who becomes moderator,
after the groups actually come into being. That will be taken care of
by the proposed moderators and their successors.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Arun Malik
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
--------------- End quoted article -------------------------
QUESTION 2:
>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.
Vivek indulges in his favorite practice of quoting me out of context.
This is one reason why I object to some of his cuts in my posts. He
may put in ellipses, but often the cuts are misleading. As is his
current allegation - based on taking my remarks totally out of
context. Notice he doesn't mention I used the word *IF*.
I was REPLYING to a post by Ajay Shah. He is the one to state:
"It is their lack of will on this account that makes on suspecious of
their ultimate motive of control over the Hindu newsgroups originating
from my personal opinion that the word Hindu be included in the name
of Vaishnava newsgroups."
All I did was respond that IF, and note I said IF, what _Ajay_ says
comes to pass, is there something that can be done about it?
"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?"
I quote both articles in full so that no one will be able to state
that I edited away anything inconvenient, or that I failed to provide
the full context.
------- Begin quote of article by Ajay Shah ---------
Path:
sundog.tiac.net!daily-planet.execpc.com!news.sol.net!uniserve!van-bc!news..mindlink..net!agate!howland..reston..ans..net!gatech!news..mathworks..com!news..kei..com!news..ece..uc..edu!babbage..ece..uc..edu!srh
From: Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu,news.groups
Subject: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
Date: 11 Jan 1996 06:18:05 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Lines: 41
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4d2a2t$6oi@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
References: <4csfms$its@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
<DKwFLv.8KC@ecf.toronto.edu> <4cvjbp$4g@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
<DKzrt5.2wI@ecf.toronto.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar
Xref: sundog.tiac.net soc.religion.hindu:1037 news.groups:177779
Namaskar,
If improvement of the presentation of the Hindu newsgroups is the only
goal that the proponents of SRH re-organization espouse, then the
solution is very simple.
I have already proposed that those who favor better representation of
Hindu dharma on the net welcome, with open mind several new Hindu
newsgroups. These newsgroups may be
a. philosophy oriented, along the lines of SRV, such as
soc.religion.hindu.shivism, etc.
b. Specific scriptures oriented, such as:
soc.religion.hindu.vedas
soc.religion.hindu.bhagwadgita
etc.
c. Oriented towards customs etc. such as
soc.religion.hindu.bhajans
soc.religion.hindu.yoga
etc.
I am surprised that the proponents have shown no aptitude to such
broad minded expansion of Hindu dharma on the net.
It is their lack of will on this account that makes on suspecious of
their ultimate motive of control over the Hindu newsgroups originating
from my personal opinion that the word Hindu be included in the name
of Vaishnava newsgroups.
regards,
ajay shah
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin:
srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives/Home Page:
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
------- End quote of Ajay Shah's article --------
-------- Begin quote of Arun Malik's response ------
Path:
sundog.tiac.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.clark.net!rahul.net!a2i!bug.rahul..net!a2i!genmagic!sgigate..sgi..com!swrinde!cssun..mathcs..emory..edu!gatech!newsfeed..internetmci..com!howland..reston..ans..net!newsxfer..itd..umich..edu!news..ece..uc..edu!babbage..ece..uc..edu!srh
From: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
Subject: Re: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
Date: 12 Jan 1996 02:41:59 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 26
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
Message-ID: <4d4hpn$6jb@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Originator: srh@rbhatnagar
Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>It is their lack of will on this account that makes on suspecious of
>their ultimate motive of control over the Hindu newsgroups originating
>from my personal opinion that the word Hindu be included in the name of
>Vaishnava newsgroups.
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
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin:
srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives/Home Page:
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
---- End article by Arun Malik responding to article by Ajay Shah ---
QUESTION 3: The difference between "they" and "we".
>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 thought you had a better self-image Vivek. Notice that "they"
refers to "peopl <sic> of good conscience" .
>|> 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
Of course, if you do not consider yourself to be a person of "good
conscience" then you would not be included as a member of the group
defined by "they" . So if I am wrong - and you do NOT consider
yourself to be a person of "good conscience", please let me know.
In the meantime, I will continue to maintain that YOU threatened Ajay
Shah.
--------- Begin quote of article by Arun Malik -----
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 ----------------------------------------
----- End quote of article by Arun Malik -----
Questions 4, 5 and 6 have to do with my apparent sympathy for Nazis.
Those who have read this far may now wish to skip to the very very end
of this article where I answer question 8. However, it does provide
interesting evidence of just how severely Vivek distorts my remarks by
taking them out of context.
I know that I said I would reply *plonk* when Vivek brought this up
again, but as he continues to repeat it over and over, and now GOPAL
is parrotting him, I will address it - definitively and for the last
time - in *terrible* length.
[An aside: I believe that rec.music.white-power will fail. If Vivek
wants to believe the Nazis who keep posting that it will pass, thats
up to him - personally I don't attach much credibility to their
assertions.]
Question 4:
>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.
Okay, here's the article in which I "praised" the neo-Nazis.
Now, did I ever criticize the SRV proponents for telling people not to
post articles advocating illegal acts?
----- Start quote -----
Path: sundog.tiac.net!usenet
From: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,news.groups
Subject: Re: Continued violations of RFD reply convention
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 23:06:14 GMT
Organization: Ad Astra
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <4cmu53$h2o@sundog.tiac.net>
References: <DKrHID.4nz@freenet.carleton.ca>
<4cmp1l$lin@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vri.tiac.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: sundog.tiac.net news.admin.net-abuse.misc:34146
news.groups:177100
kmcvay@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC) wrote:
>You are too modest, Mr. Kleim, but you should not be - UseNet
>should find out what you _really_ think about "UseNet
>convention," so they can see you for the hypocrite you are:
<snip>
> Find groups that are suitable for organizational and literature advertise-
> ments: talk.politics.guns should have regular posts explaining how to order
> _The Turner Diaries_ and _Hunter_; rec.radio.shortwave should have regular
> posts of the _American Dissident Voices_ schedule; alt.music. groups should
> have regular posts about Resistance Records.
As much as I disagree with Nazi/Aryan politics, I don't see how this
proves him to be a hypocrite. Instead it shows that he is urging
people to follow Usenet guidelines.
Furthermore, I appreciate his guidelines about spewing racial hatred.
I certainly don't want to see it on the newsgroups I read.
>* Except on "our" groups, avoid the Race issue.
And his advice about avoiding flamewars is certainly welcome.
>* Avoid engaging in non-productive debates with enemy activists.
And his advice against SPAMing.
>* IMPORTANT: While we should all admire his perseverance, NEVER, EVER, do "the
> Gannon," and spam groups with messages totally unrelated to the group's
> focus.
And the following is just common sense.
> DO NOT EVER post a message that advocates or supports an illegal act or ac-
> tivity.
His advice is well reasoned. Although it is in furtherance of an
agenda with which most people disagree, it does not mark him as a
hypocite.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
HR2441 & S1284 have been introduced in the US Congress. The new law
1 eliminates the fair use doctrine for digital media,
2 outlaws decompilation
3.makes ISPs legally liable for copyright infringement by their users.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/ipnii/
http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.2441:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
------ End quote of article by Arun Malik -----
QUESTION 5
>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?
I objected to the SRV proponents trying to raise support for the RFD
for SRV by sending the RFD over a Hare Krishan mailing list AND THEN
stating that _I_ could not distribute the RFD to people on anti-cult
mailing lists in an attempt to generate opposition.
I still believe that if one side can try to raise support via mailing
lists, that the other side should be able to do the same to make
potential opponents aware of an RFD.
And I recognize that this is in violation of Usenet procedure on the
part of opponents. A fact that I mention in the article below.
Please notice that my comments in the article are not inconsistent
with my long held position.
----- Start article by Arun Malik -----
Path: sundog.tiac.net!usenet
From: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.music.white-power: it'll be a cold day in hell
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 1996 11:49:43 GMT
Organization: Ad Astra
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <4coas7$4ds@sundog.tiac.net>
References: <820866207.1723@uunet.uu.net>
<4ckdek$c1c@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca>
<qumg2dui1u0.fsf@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> <4cmecq$rlj@nile.intac.com>
<jamie-0601962332520001@198.109.137.33>
NNTP-Posting-Host: vri.tiac.net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Actually, this is what he should be doing. He is asking people on a
mailing list that deals with a particular type of music to go to news
groups and support the formation of a news group dedicated to that
very same type of music. He asks them to follow Usenet conventions in
making their support known, asks them to remain civil, etcetera.
Drumming up support for an RFD by sending email to mailing lists is
standard procedure. Proponents can also state in the CFV that they
intend to distribute the CFV on mailing lists.
Mr. Kleim therefore is faithfully following Usenet procedures in every
respect.
I fully expect Mr. Kleim to carefully follow all Usenet protocols for
the next six weeks and then act indignant when the opposition violates
them in order to ensure the defeat of this newsgroup. Why? Because
then he can go around stating that there is no free speech in
America-- not *even* on the Internet.
And he'll be able to point to the vote on this newsgroup to prove it.
And he'll be happy. Because he doesn't need the rec.* group, but he
could sure use _proof_ that he (and by extension, white people) are
being oppressed.
jamie@voyager.net (Jamie McCarthy) wrote:
>Just for the record, I don't much care either way if this
>rec.music.white-power newsgroup passes or not. But, also just for the
>record, here's what Milton Kleim is telling his "comrades" to do. This
>just came in "over the wire" on the Resistance Records mailing list, a
>few minutes ago. (This article emailed to Mr. McVay and Mr. Kleim.)
>X-Sender: rrecords@resistance.com
>To: resistlist@www.resistance.com
>From: rrecords@resistance.com (Resistance Records)
>Subject: Special Bulletin!!!!!1
>Message-Id: <96Jan6.192023pst.30753-2+742@haven.uniserve.com>
>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 1996 19:20:16 -0000
>Sender: owner-resistlist@ender.uniserve.com
>Attention Comrades!
>I have successfully posted a "Request for Discussion" for the proposed
>newsgroup "rec.music.white-power."
>However, the Enemy has already mobilized against us (see below).
>I need your IMMEDIATE and unrestrained assistance.
>GO to the newsgroup "news.groups," where the only discussion that counts
>is taking place. RFD convention requires that follow-ups to my RFD occur
>ONLY on news.groups. Post your comments in favor of rec.music.white-power.
>Post only mature comments; DO NOT post profanity against Mcvay or anyone
>else. Make yourself look like an Aryan by being respectable. Mcvay's
>wild innuendo right now reflects terribly on him. We need to shine!
>You may find the "RFD: rec.music.white-power" on several groups, but
>follow-up with your comments ONLY to news.groups.
>I can't defeat the Enemy alone. But, together, we CAN do it, and create
>rec.music.white-power.
<snip>
----- End article by Arun Malik ------
QUESTION 6 and 7: about rec.music.white-power
>Have you been following that discussion? It might very well pass,
>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?
Because their RFD is doomed to fail?? A group of 15 people - tops -
with a couple of computer literate members is going to succeed in
passing a newsgroup against such voracious opposition?
I know you'd like to pretend that they are going to succeed, so as it
make it appear sinister that I'm not going all out in opposition to
them, but why don't we check out what others are saying. I don't
intend to start quoting a dozen articles from a dozen different
opponents. One article by Modemac should be enough.
[sorry for the formatting problem below, when I copied the article,
the line lengths of the article being copied shortened.]
---- Start quote of article by Modemac ----
Newsgroups:
alt.revisionism,misc.news.internet.discuss,alt.journalism,alt.internet.media-coverage,alt..politics..nationalism..white,alt..politics..white-power
Path:
sundog.tiac.net!news.kei.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci..com!howland..reston..ans..net!ix..netcom..com!netcom..com!modemac
From: modemac@netcom.com (Modemac)
Subject: Hate groups are *not* invading the Internet
Message-ID: <modemacDLBp5o.Ksn@netcom.com>
Followup-To: misc.news.internet.discuss
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700
guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 11:27:24 GMT
Lines: 120
Sender: modemac@netcom3.netcom.com
Xref: sundog.tiac.net alt.revisionism:62251
misc.news.internet.discuss:2710 alt.journalism:37859
alt.internet.media-coverage:17398 alt.politics.nationalism.white:32169
alt.politics.white-power:38112
The recent article in TIME magazine about "hate groups on the
Internet"
may give a lot of people the impression that white supremacists are
somehow becoming a "problem" on the Internet. It may be the catalyst
that
causes some people to form the opinion that action is necessary to
"counter the threat" of hate groups on the Internet.
In fact, this is hardly the case. The appearance of an article in
TIME
magazine makes the problem of hate groups on the Net seem more
important
than it really is. Within the past few weeks, the self-proclaimed
white
supremacists have been stepping up their efforts to use the Net to
bring
more attention to their cause. These efforts have included posting
racist
messages on unrelated newsgroup, such as alt.support.loneliness and
alt.slack; proposing the creation of a "new" white power newsgroup on
news.groups (allegedly for the discussion of "white power music"); and
continued harassment of those individuals who counter their hatred
with
honest, factual information, most notably Ken McVay, the founder and
coordinator of the Nizkor Project, which uses historical evidence to
counter claims that the Holocaust never existed. Recently, Mr. McVay
has
been the subject of an email mail-bombing campaign, in which he has
been
unknowingly subscribed to dozens of mailing lists; this resulted in a
flood of unwanted email to his mailbox. Mr. McVay has also been the
subject of numerous threats of violence. To prove this, he has made
one
implied threat available for anyone to listen to, simply by following
the
appropriate link on his Web page.
Mr. McVay's sufferings are not unique amongst the denizens of the
Internet. However, they are not representative of the vast majority
of
Internet users, most of whom are still blissfully unaware of the
existence
of hate groups on the Internet. It is not likely that these
multitudes of
people will ever become involved in the discussion of, or struggle
with,
online hate groups. Why is this so? Because the white supremacists,
neo-Nazis, and other purveyors of hate are vastly outnumbered by the
many
honest and fair individuals who make up the bulk of the population of
the
Net.
What I'm trying to say is this: the white supremacists are generating
a
lot of hot air.
For instance, TIME magazine used a white-power organization called the
"Carolinan Lords of the Caucasus" in its article as an example of an
online hate group. I have exchanged messages on Usenet with one
self-proclaimed "Racial Theorist," the same representative of this
group
that was mentioned in the article. This person freely admitted to me
that
CLOC's membership consists of only fifteen people. One or two of
these
people happen to have access to the Internet, and they are attempting
to
promote their newsgroup in a noisy and boorish fashion. Does this
mean
that CLOC represents a danger to those millions of Net users who are
not
interested in so-called "white power?" No, it simply means that one
or
two members of a fringe group - whose entire membership could easily
sit
around a kitchen table for dinner - are shooting off their mouths and
getting a lot of people angry at them because they are not following
traditional "Netiquette." The self-proclaimed "Racial Theorist" has
been
posting white-power messages on alt.slack regularly, and what has been
the
result? He has been laughed at and ridiculed for his efforts. The
denizens of alt.slack are intelligent enough to recognize a cheap
attempt
at propaganda when they see one, and I am confident enough to proclaim
that *no one* has been enticed into joining CLOC because of the
so-called
"Racial Theorist's" messages.
It is true that larger hate groups, such as the "National Alliance"
and
"Christian Identity," are gaining Net access and coming online. These
groups already face formidable obstacles in reaching the mainstream,
because their goals and beliefs are already well-known to the members
of
the Net. People know that these organizations encourage hatred of
people
with beliefs and physical characteristics different from their own;
their
purpose is to make themselves feel stronger by excluding others.
However,
a well-informed, organized answer to their nonsense already exists,
thanks
to the hard-working denizens of such bastions of hate as
alt.politics.white-power, alt.politics.nationalism.white, and
alt.revisionism (the newsgroup for discussion of so-called "evidence"
that the Holocaust never existed - "evidence" that has yet to be
presented). Anyone who peruses these newsgroups for any amount of time
will come to an inescapable conclusion: the few "white supremacists"
who
inhabit these newsgroups are vastly outnumbered by their opponents,
both
in terms of sheer numbers and in terms of information. The
hate-ridden
propaganda they present as "fact" is so laughable and unbelievable
that it
makes the typical Net user gasp in disbelief, and often with laughter.
The white-power newsgroups are ridden with flame wars and baseless
name-calling - mostly on the part of the white supremacists - because
they
have no other weapons to use against their online opponents (other
than
threats of violence and petty hacker harassment, such as the actions
taken
against Ken McVay). These flame wars reveal the true emptiness and
waste
of the white supremacists. They do a laudable job of presenting the
truth
about these groups to the legions of the Net. As such, they represent
a
threat to absolutely no one, other than their chosen targets (again,
such
as the Nikzor Project), and to themselves.
There have been some mutterings by a few people that action may be
necessary to combat the "threat" of hate groups on the Internet,
including
the forcing of anonymous remailers to reveal the identities of
anonymous
senders of threatening and hateful messages. These steps are, in
fact,
*not* necessary. The Net has already done a surpassing job of
exposing
the truth about online hate groups. The recent actions taken by the
"white power" advocates to spread their propaganda on the Net reveals
their desperation: they have been effectively countered in on their
home
turf, and the are vainly seeking new ways to make their hate more
acceptable. But all they are doing is getting many people angry at
them
-- hardly a tribute to the effectiveness of "white Christian America."
What we are seeing on the Net right now is merely a temper tantrum
thrown
by a bunch of crybabies who refuse to admit that they are wrong. They
are
hoping that if they scream loud enough, someone will take pity on them
and
offer help. The likelihood of the online hate groups gaining a
powerful
ally of *any* sort is exceedingly low.
Why should anyone want to take "action" against a bunch of whiners and
spoiled brats who proclaim the superiority of the "Aryan" race? These
people hardly represent a threat to the Net, and the Net is
effectively
keeping their drivel in check.
This is my plea to those who would report on the existence of online
hate
groups to the world at large: don't overstate their importance. Take
some
some to view the battle as it unfolds, and decide for yourselves
whether
online hate groups are indeed a threat to the Net - or just another
bunch
of loudmouthed lunatics.
--
Reverend Modemac (modemac@netcom.com)
First Online Church of "Bob" "There is no black and white."
PGP Key Fingerprint: 47 90 41 70 B4 5B 06 90 7B 38 4E 11 8A ED 80 DF
URL: http://www.tiac.net/users/modemac/
(FINGER modemac@netcom.com for a FREE SubGenius Pamphlet!)
----- End quoted article by Modemac -----
And for those of you who want to check to see if I answered all of
Vivek's questions, here is the article I am responding to:
------- Start article by Vivek Pai -----
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>--
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
>Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
NOTE: I am not going to reply in such length again. I did so just to
show how severely Vivek distorts my postions. In the future, I will
just repost this article if Vivek keeps repeating his baseless
allegations.
QUESTION 8
>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?
But I can't assume your positions are genuine when you engage in such
severe distortions of my positions. To the point where it is
necessary to post several hundred line rebuttals.
Arun Malik
P.S. I still oppose this RFD. My willingness to discuss shortcomings
on specific minor points should not obscure that fact that I believe
that if traffic justifies a co-moderator, that Ajay should be allowed
to choose one. If the proponenets drop the list of five proposed
moderators, allow Ajay Shah to choose a co-moderator, and change some
points in the moderation policy, then I could support the RFD.
