[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH-reorg.. No basis for accusations
Namaskar,
Those who have followed SRV and SRH debates for a long time would readily
recognize the word "proponent" not strictly in the newsgroup creation
terminology "proponent", but as a "staunch supporter".
After all, in several of my messages, to avoid this confusion, I
explictly stated that the proponents of SRH re-organization move are
among the proponents/maintainers/staunch supporters of SRV.
Gopalji, please let me know if the following comments are incorrect!
On Tue, 9 Jan 1996, GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
> In article <4csfms$its@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> (a) Fact #1 Proponents of SRH-reorg are NOT proponents of SRV
> ================================
> S Rao was NOT a proponent of SRV
Shirsha Raoji was one of the people who drafted the charter for SRV, he
in fact wrote to me before the RFD was posted, and he was among the first to
"threaten" SRH re-org.
> Vv Pai was NOT a proponent of SRV
> Vj Pai was NOT a proponent of SRV
But they were *very* staunch supporters of SRV, and one of them actually
threatened/supported re-org move during SRV debate.
> Mani V was NOT a proponent of SRV
Maniji maintains the hardware part of SRV automoderation
> H Groover was NOT a proponent of SRV
Maintains the software part of auto-moderation for SRV.
Would you still want to claim no connection between SRH re-org "proponents"
and SRV "proponents"?
Rest of the analysis deleted because it is based on false assumptions.
I once again emphasize that the move to re-organize SRH has its origins
in my insistance on inclusion of word Hindu in the name of SRV. It is
driven by petty politics and personal vendetta, and nothing less!
regards,
ajay shah
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
