[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <ghenDv34FC.GoF@netcom.com>,
Sandeep Vaishnavi <svaishnavi@bosco.meis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>> 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.
Once again, how cute - now you wish to link me with O.J. Simpson? Your
point, Mr. Vaishnavi?
>>However, I haven't forgotten that you specifically stated that "these
>>few individuals are using ISKCON's name". Now either provide proof of
>
> I have said repeatedly that "these few individuals" are maligning
>ISKCON's good name because their actions are deemed to be supported by
You specifically said they were _using_ ISKCON's name, a statement
which you apparently cannot support with evidence. If you are able to
support it with evidence, please do so.
>ISKCON in the public image. I certainly will not retract this statement.
I asked you to retract the first statement, not the one you're trying
to replace it with.
> By the way, I haven't heard the saying 'lying like a big dog' -
>but then again, you might be more familiar with canines.
Hyuk, hyuk, hyuk. Wow, Mr. Vaishnavi - first you link me with OJ
Simpson and now you say I'm familiar with canines. All the while,
however, you refuse to acknowledge that your original statements in
this thread were untruthful.
>>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,
OK, now I'm seeing from where your mental confusion arises - it's from
poor reading skills. Dig up that article and re-read it.
> etc.) If you desire, I'll quote that article and I expect a public
> apology.
You still haven't shown that your statement was correct. It would be
very simple for you to do so - try dig up anything where ISKCON's name
is mentioned in connection with the SRH reorg proposal. However, you
won't find anything, because as I've said before, this proposal has
nothing to do with ISKCON.
>>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.
The first time with you, perhaps, but not the first time ever.
>>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 they have any sense, they'd say "oh, in his spare time, he's doing
things to help groups he supports". I also supported the American Red
Cross last year. Are they now among the targets of the anti-reorg
campaign?
>>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, you're trying to pull a sleight of hand. You've stated
that someone flailed Mr. Shah for not supporting SRV. Now, either
produce some evidence for that claim or I'll have no choice but to
believe that you're dreaming this stuff up.
Incidentally, I don't recall an RFD for
soc.religion.hindu.vaisnava. There was, however, an RFD for
soc.religion.vaishnava, which I supported.
-Vivek
