[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: No Personal Vendetta : Inconclusive "Proof"!
Real Subject: SRH Reorg: Personal Vendetta : Conclusive Proof!
Namaskar,
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
> It should not be surprising to anyone who has followed this thread
> that one of the goals of the RFD is to make the moderators "mere
> mortals" - in other words, the moderators are the peers, not the
> overlords, of the readers of this group. This is why the reorg RFD
> has specific statements about what moderators can and cannot do. It
> is designed to limit the power of the moderators, and to prevent the
> moderators from abusing their positions.
But SRV, a newsgroup proposed and supported by the same moderators does
not have any such rules and regulations about the people who maintain the
software and hardware of the bot moderated newsgroup. So, naturally, the
question still remains, why these double standards?
>
> This is a blatant lie - what was at issue was not what beliefs Ajay
> held, but his unethical campaigning during the _CFV_ stage of SRV. In
> the process of creating a newsgroup, there are two stages, where the
> first is for discussion, and the second is for voting. As far as I
> remember, Ajay did not say a single word publicly during the stage
> where discussion was encouraged, but he waited until the CFV stage
> before trying to stop the newsgroup. What's more, he used his SRH
Vivekji, perhaps I can refresh your memory. Here is a sequence of events.
1. I *did* post during RFD (on news.groups), surely, with your expertise in
DejaNews search, you can dig out my post?
2. Upon the court decision regarding ISKCON temple in UK, the need for
Hindu unity was underscored, so I posted a **personal** opinion regarding
the matter to some of the relevent newsgroup. I did not post the message
to SRH, and in the evening after I was told that we can work towards a
more constructive dialog. In any case, surely, even moderator of SRH has
freedom of speech to express his personal opinion.
3. But surely, must know, the post about my personal opinion about SRV was
made from ajay@mercury account, perhaps one of the subsequent posts was
made from srh@rbhatnagar account. Once again, your expertise with DejaNews
can help you in this regards.
4. Afterall, I did not post my views to SRH. So how was I misusing
moderator privilages?
> moderator's accounts to send out his messages against SRV, and he
> signed his notes indicating his position as moderator of SRH. All of
> this, once again, took place in the stage where campaigning is _not_
There are enough Ajay Shahs in the world, and all I had done was say
which Ajay Shah was posting this message.
> allowed. What's worse, Jai Maharaj sent e-mail to a large number of
> people encouraging them to vote against SRV, and in his e-mail, Jai
> indicated that this was sanctioned by Ajay. When asked to publically
> refute this statement, Ajay did not (to the best of my knowledge), and
> Jai kept repeating the claim over and over.
Vivekji, once again, your memory fails you. In fact, I sent out at least
*five* messages indicating that I had nothing to do with the postings
made my Jai Maharaj ji.
Please, please, use your knowledge of DejaNews before
making blatantly false and misleading statements and claiming "to the
best of my knowledge...". After all, you and/or other proponents or SRH
destruction move responded to every single post I made on this subject.
I have absolutely no control over how Jai Maharaj ji or you or anyone
else uses my name.
> What Ajay fails to underline is "if Dr. Maharaj and Mr. Shah manage
> to stop SRV using their fraudulent practices..."
I comitted no fraud. Unless you count standing up for the word Hindu a
fraud.
I merely expressed an opinion that a Vaishnava newsgroup should have
word Hindu in its name. Strange, those who vehemently opposed the word
Hindu are now trying to destroy/control the Hindu newsgroup.
Then perhaps, that's how politics works!
> This is where the "fraudulent practices" bit comes in - the SRV
> issue saw a moderator abusing his official title and moderator's
> account in order to campaign against a newsgroup during the _CFV_.
There is absolutely no evidence of any fradulent practices. Merely
repeating the word fradulent many times does not make a false claim
truthful.
> The implication was clear - SRH was being used as a political tool
> to try to interfere with things not related to SRH, and it was
> being used at the whim of a single individual.
Since the first and major posting was done from my personal account, and
since that posting was not made to SRH. it should be pretty obvious that
there was no abuse of moderator position
>
> Was there ever a referendum on SRH about what its readership felt
> about SRV? If not, then what gave a single individual the power to
> attempt to speak for all of SRH? That's the point that is somehow
> missing from all of these conspiracy theories.
But then I never claimed to speak *for* SRH, just as Ajay Shah!
> |> 3. The proponents have failed to provide a single example of posting
> |> that was unfairly rejected from Soc.Religion.Hindu
>
Once again, challange remains. Provide a single unfairly rejected posting
from soc.religion.hindu. After all, we are debating SRH re-org aren't we?
Vivekji, the proponents of SRH re-org took a lot of trouble in downloading
every single posting from Alt.Hindu and SRH archives, and creating a FA(ke)Q
(:-() you could have done much better and looked up my posts about SRV
before makeing statements like "To the best of my knowledge.."
Vivekji, from this post of yours, I once again see that the central theme
of re-organization is my stand on the word Hindu in the SRV creation and
the personal vendetta you and the other proponents developed against me
during that process.
I stand by my opinion on the inclusion of word Hindu in a Vaishnava
newsgroup. I do not, unlike some of the proponents of SRV believe that
Vaishnavism is orthogonal to Hindu dharma, nor do I believe that Hindu has
anything to do with a person's physical appearence.
I congratulate you and the other proponents on the creation of SRV, I wish
nothing but the best for SRV. I would have hoped that you would have
similar sentiments about SRH.
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
References:
