[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Moderator Incompetence (was Re: Animal killing and Soul merging
In article <4grs39$3l1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> Actually, this was a request for the moderator, Mr. Ajay Shah. It was not
>> intended for you. I am still waiting for Ajay's version. But meanwhile, I
will
>> answer yours.
>
>Then don't post it to srh. Send it as personal e-mail. If you want to post
>something on a public-forum be prepared for replies from anyone.
I *did* send it via e-mail. Submissions by e-mail are how the moderator
receives postings. Apparently he was not able to figure out from the content
that it was addressed to him.
>I certainly did give reasons in quite a few postings. BTW, I attacked the
>opinions of Vaishnavite aachaaryaas. So you say I indulged in personal
attacks.
You gave no reasons in the original posting. Thus, I rightly construed it as
nothing more than an attack.
>Thus I am forced to conclude that you are an opinion of the Gaudiya
aachaaryas.
>Sorry, Mr. Opinion, for the personal attack. I did not know that the opinion
of
>Gaudiya aachaaryas had a separate existence called HKS.
Gosh, that was really funny. huh. huh. huh.
>
>Readers of the srh will certainly remember that I posted my reasons for
>attacking the opinions of the aachaaryaas.
But not in the original post of this thread. That's my point.
In one instance I mis-identified the
>GVS with ISKCON (Vijay, atleast you'll remember this) and when pointed out, I
>accepted my mistake and also apologized.
Yes, that apology was ever so humble. You apologized, and then attacked again.
At least that time, you presented some semblance of an argument. I did respond
to that, incidentally, but I still have not seen my response appear on SRH.
>He certainly did admit his mistake.
He did no such thing. At least, I have not seen anywhere an admission by Mr.
Shah that your posting was also inappropriate. Rather, I questioned him about
it over e-mail, and he defended his decision to allow your lyrical composition
(which you now admitted was a personal attack) onto SRH.
If there has been some kind of public apology by MR. Shah regarding that post,
then I would appreciate it if someone forwarded it to me. But I have not seen
it on SRH.
He allowed both our posts and then realized
>things were getting out of hand and asked us both to modify our posts. I did
>and you did not.
And yet, your Mayavadam post *still* contained personal attacks. I addressed
that point in my response, and I certainly did not see any indication from
Shah regarding it.
After all Mr. Shah is human (Hopefully he's also not an
>opinion :-)), and all of us make mistakes once in a while. What do you want
him
>to do? Post a GIF file of himself on his knees?
I want him to come up with a consistent definition of what is, and what is not
a personal attack. Rather than do so, Shah simply makes that kind of a call on
the basis of some as yet undetermined factor (the direction of the wind
perhaps). At one point, he whimsically rejects postings as having personal
attacks even when he cannot say what those attacks were. Then, he later allows
other offensive posts, under the plea that personal attacks come in the form
"X is a Y" and that those posts did not contain such a format. Then, he again
rejects my posting for containing personal attacks even though nothing therein
satisfied his definition of a personal attack.
This is not a personal attack, but to be frank, I don't think the moderator
would have to define "personal attack" so precisely if he applied some common
sense to the situation. But because he won't do so, he lets in all kinds of
offensive postings, and only gets upset when the replies to said postings are
also offensive.
>I certainly gave reasons.
But not in the original post. Therefore, the original posting of yours was
nothing more than a personal attack.
You probably did not read them. Feel free to disagree
>and criticize my reasoning, but don't tell things like "you never gave any
Yes, I have become somewhat familiar with your so-called reasoning. It
involves statements like "rest of article is as intelligent as epsilon (where
epsilon is infinitely close to zero)"
>Well, I cut out the two things that Ajay objected to. And the attack was
purely
I am talking about the fact that Ajay did allow you to make some attacks,
although he insisted that you change others. Once again, I note that he is
very inconsistent in his treatment of personal attacks.
>on Prabhupada's style of writing and his inconsistencies. I am sure he was a
>very pious person and helped in spreading the importance of Bhakthi (though
by
>giving incorrect arguments). I have respect for that. The problem with you is
Yes. Respect. Hmm. Saying that someone "talks tripe and absurdity" is still
respectful? hmmm.
Ramakrishnan, I really respect you. Your bhaasya is total tripe, and without
humor. But I do respect you. Really.
>that you think if I oppose your point of view, that I am indulging in
personal
If you could mount an intelligent basis for opposing my point of view, it
would be most welcome. Your problem is that you think simply denouncing
someone's arguments as unintelligent or absurd is the basis for an opposition.
>attacks and being arrogant. In that case don't post your views on a public
>forum. People are bound to have contrasting views.
That's hardly an excuse for your behavior. I have had contrasting views with
others before on alt.hindu/SRH, long before you showed up on SRH. But you are
one of the few people who seems to feel satsified that a little bit of
name-calling can make up for what you can't deliver in terms of a logical
argument. Yes, you finally gave an argument in the Mayavadam post. But before
that, your style was pure name-calling. It hardly impresses me as a
"contrasting view."
>Ask me if I care. You can blaspheme Shankara for all you are worth. I won't
even
>bother to reply. If you talk about his works instead, I might reply. And I
>certainly did not criticize Prabhpada and say that he was * or & or ^. I
merely
>said that his article was illogical. If you cannot stand such criticism of
>aachaaryas stop reading srh.
What I cannot stand is name-calling and personal attacks which are allowed by
a moderator who simultaneously excercises harsher moderation standards on
others. Your arguments hardly qualify as "criticism," laced as they are with
more of your arrogant remarks.
>When did I "sanction" materialistic behavior? And who am I to sanction
Put it this way, Ram. What is wrong, according to your version of Advaita?
Apparently, meat-eating isn't wrong. Reading Kama Sutra isn't wrong. Making
money and using it for your own sense pleasure isn't wrong.
I submit to you that your standards, as well as the moral standards of most
neo-advaitins these days, are made so deliberately easy to follow so that they
will appeal to people who aren't interested in any kind of regulation.
>Well, there was nothing humorous in it. Ofcourse it's a matter of opinion.
>Ofcourse Ken thought it was a personal attack also.
Naturally he would say that, since I exposed his whimsical attitude vis-a-vis
the acharyas.
