[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <4svfbt$p0s@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
<SVAISHNAVI@BOSCO.MEIS.UAB.EDU> wrote:
>> >What's even more disturbing to me
>> >is that these few individuals are using ISKCON's name in this vindictive,
>> >vendetta-like action.
>>
>> If you can find _one_ instance of any of the proponents using ISKCON's
>> name in support of the reorg proposal, I will gladly issue a firm
>> apology to anyone involved.
>
> Though I hadn't named you, I'm glad you volunteered yourself as one
>involved in this vendetta.
How cute - so akin to the "are you still beating your wife question".
However, I haven't forgotten that you specifically stated that "these
few individuals are using ISKCON's name". Now either provide proof of
that statement, or admit that you're lying through your teeth. I gave
you one opportunity to retract that statement, and so far, this is the
best you've been able to do. Now, either back it up, retract it, or
just go ahead and accept that you're lying "like a big dog".
Now, as far as "volunteering" myself for anything, it should be clear
to anyone involved that Shrisha and I are the most vocal proponents of
the reorg, and Shrisha's clearly not in ISKCON, so your implication is
clearly aimed at me. If it isn't, please be kind enough to state who
you had in mind when you made the comment.
>> However, if you cannot, and if you have
>> any integrity whatsoever, I expect a full public apology.
>
> I don't have anything against you personally, Vivek; I want this to be
>a debate about the issues. Yet, you insist on attacking my integrity. I
>expect a full public apology for this.
So far, you've made a statement which you've failed to support, and if
you insist on not providing support for it, I have little choice but
to decide that you do have no integrity. So, if you're willing to
provide support for that statement, I will issue a full public apology
for questioning you and your integrity. Pretty simple, isn't it?
>Do you deny
>that your support for this proposal has nothing to do with revenge for Mr.
>Shah's opposition to SRV?
Very Kafkaesque, but yes, I'll deny that charge once again, like I've
denied it every time it's been raised.
>You didn't deny that in your reply and I assume you admit it.
You know what they say about people who assume, right?
Anyway, I've denied it at least a dozen times in the past, and I
haven't issued anything changing my position on the matter, so the
only safe assumption here is that the denial still stands, which it
does.
>If you recall, different ISKCON-related individuals were certainly
>involved in the SRV debate (recall Bhaktivedanta Manor's role). You were
>certainly involved in that very public fracas and there's no doubt you're
>identified with ISKCON in the collective internet mind. Consequently, what
>you do with this reorg proposal does indeed affect ISKCON's image. To use a
>couple of cliches, it's 'guilt by association' and 'image is everything.'
Here's where it's interesting - I was a very vocal supporter of
soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir, and in all likelihood, I even posted
more than the official proponent in that debate. I was also very
vocally against the very questionable soc.culture.kashmir, which, if
you recall, was going to be moderated by two people who seemed
anti-India.
However, the only person I've ever seen claiming any ISKCON connection
in those 2 issues was one anonymous poster named "azaad" who suggested
that David Lawrence and Russ Allbery were "ISKCON stooges". So, here's
a question for you - why is it that in those cases, there haven't been
people claiming an ISKCON connection, but here, there are?
Simple - it's the cute little smear job at work, and apparently,
you've bought into it.
>important to counter him vigorously. I certainly believe that ISKCON has
> nothing to do with this proposal - but the problem, I repeat, is the image.
If you want it straight from the horse's mouth for future use, let me
give you a perfect statement - ISKCON has nothing to do with the
soc.religion.hindu reorg proposal. There. Now you can use it whenver you
feel like it needs to be said, and you can quote me on it.
>Think about it - a person who is a vigorous, even aggressive ISKCON supporter
>flails Mr. Shah for not supporting SRV (which has strong support from some
Can you name this person and show the posts where this person
allegedly flailed Mr. Shah for not supporting SRV? Please be specific.
>ISKCON members) and seemingly tries to take revenge by removing Mr. Shah as
>moderator of SRH.
Once again, I must point out to you that Mr. Shah has been offered a
place on the moderation panel, and that offer is _still open_. If that
sounds like a "removal", then I'm afraid we don't see eye to eye.
> I'm glad that you don't think you speak for ISKCON. Perhaps to make
>this clear in everyone's mind, you should have a disclaimer on all your
>postings saying just that.
A person who works for company X will generally have a disclaimer
saying "these are my personal views and not those of company X". If I
put on the disclaimer you propose, the effect would be the exact
opposite of what you suggest.
>> Now, as for the rest of your article, has it occurred to you that
>> nobody is trying to force Ajay Shah out of his position as moderator?
>> The offer to have him join the moderation panel of the reorg proposal
>> has been standing for several months now, and is still open.
>
> The question, rather, is why remove Mr. Shah at all as the sole
>moderator?
Why are there 9 supreme court judges in the US? Nobody is being
"removed".
>The reasons you listed are vacuous and untenable at best. The
>only reason seems to be a vindictive one.
Have you read the SRH reorg FAQ? It's available at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html and I believe it
answers these questions.
-Vivek
