[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
>> 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".
No, it's more like someone talking about spousal abuse on a radio
show and O.J. Simpson calling in, asking the speaker to prove that he
beat his wife Nicole.
You're in really august company now, Mr. Pai.
>
>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".
I have said repeatedly that "these few individuals" are maligning
ISKCON's good name because their actions are deemed to be supported by
ISKCON in the public image. I certainly will not retract this statement.
ISKCON's name was involved in the SRV fight and like I've said, your
motivations for SRH reorg seem to closely relate to Mr. Shah standing up
for the word 'Hindu' in the SRV debate.
By the way, I haven't heard the saying 'lying like a big dog' -
but then again, you might be more familiar with canines.
>
>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.
You certainly were one of the individuals I had in mind.
>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?
Look, Vivek, you yourself had a posting not too long ago where
you extolled your work for ISKCON (you talked about a children's book,
etc.) If you desire, I'll quote that article and I expect a public
apology.
>
>>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.
No, not 'once again'. In our little debate, this is the first
time you will have denied it.
>
>>You didn't deny that in your reply and I assume you admit it.
>
>You know what they say about people who assume, right?
No, please educate me!
>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.
I commend you on that (really!) SCK would have been a huge
mistake.
>
>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.
No, I don't think so. I don't know about the specific cases you
mentioned but when you yourself post an article about your involvement
with ISKCON, what are people supposed to think?
>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.
Thank you for the statement. Unfortunately, public perceptions
are hard to wipe away.
>Can you name this person and show the posts where this person
>allegedly flailed Mr. Shah for not supporting SRV? Please be specific.
I'm thinking about you actually. Do you deny you were against
soc.religion.hindu.vaisnava?
>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.
It certainly is like a removal. It's like Mr. Narsimha Rao's
tactic with T. N. Seshan. He didn't like Mr. Seshan's vigorous rectitude
and so tried to dilute him by adding two more members to the Election
Commission. Mr. Seshan was doing a good job as a neutral Election
Commissioner, but perhaps Mr. Rao had an agenda of his own. Sounds
familiar with the SRH reorg, doesn't it?
>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.
Why is that? In this case, we (you and I) want to eliminate this
public perception that your opinions are those of ISKCON's. Since we
both agree on this, why not do everything to achieve those goals?
>> 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".
Let's say that there was 1 Supreme Court judge and President
Clinton had problems with him. He then proposed a sweeping expansion of
the Court; wouldn't that be suspicious?
>
>>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
They're still vacuous and untenable.
Sandeep Vaishnavi
