[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
In article <4cgd2k$jgt@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Dhruba Chakravarti <dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Dear Vijayji:
Vivek, but who's counting ;-)
>Thank you for the candid response. I do not want to interfere with your
>efforts towards reaching at a compromise, because if you do reach a
>compromise, we all stand to benefit from it.
Rather than just not interfering, it would be helpful if you helped
work towards a compromise.
>You must have noticed that
>Sri Nachiketa Tiwari, Sri Bon Giovanni and Sri Jai Maharaj are opposed to
>any reorganization. You have not (unless I missed it) engaged in a
>discussion with them why their opposition must be dismissed.
Then you must have missed it. I personally have responded to articles
by Tiwari and Maharaj, and I can send copies to you if you'd like. I
don't know if I've responded to Giovanni, but I know others have.
However, the point here is not to "dismiss their opposition", but
rather to address their concerns, and that's why I asked you to list
any concerns which you feel have not been addressed. Please do so.
>I complement you for declaring that you are indeed Hindus. I believe
>that helps.
I am saddened that this was even a topic of discussion. I have been a
Hindu all my life, and I don't recall any time when I was asked to
fight for it by non-Hindus. The only time I've had to "prove" that I'm
a Hindu was when other Hindus were leveling the charge. I'll omit any
social commentary.
>The second issue of "conspiracy" is still at large, and you
>can put a stop to that too.
I was under the impression that this issue had been addressed a
number of times, but if you wish...
>For example, you could say that the
>critical, disagreeing views of how the SRH functions, under Ajayji's
>moderatorship, as has been presented to us as "evidences" by several
>people; are fabrications,
They are not fabrications, and this is beginning to sound more like
an inquisition than anything else. First I'm asked to prove that I'm
a Hindu, and now I'm asked to recant previous statements.
The data on the SRH-stats page, for example, is something I'm willing
to stand by 100%, and people not involved in this RFD have echoed
similar sentiments.
>merely bad cut and paste jobs,
I have not seen _any_ cut-and-paste jobs from the people involved with
the RFD. Please elaborate.
>you really never
>had an ulterior motive; or, accept that those were your intentions and
>you have since then distanced from that stance.
I never had an ulterior motive. I believe that I've even made the
offer that I would be willing to swear to this in front of Deities,
and I don't take that lightly.
>A third insinuation is
>that the silence of the proposed moderators is evidence that they do not
>want to be a party to this reorganization plan anymore.
The proponents are the ones responsible for arguing for the RFD. As far
as I can tell, the "insinuation" is baseless.
>That would be my short list for you. I do not know right now what to
>advise Ajayji, so I am refraining from it.
What would be more helpful is a point-by-point list of things you
would like to discuss regarding the RFD itself. After all, this is
supposed to be about the RFD, and not theories.
-Vivek
