[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <ghenDw36pA.ILA@netcom.com>, vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) says:
>
>In article <ghenDw19Dw.2xC@netcom.com>,
>Sandeep Vaishnavi <svaishnavi@bosco.meis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>Mr. Pai certainly does NOT speak for ISKCON and I wish the
>>ISKCON leadership would dissociate from him as quickly as possible.
>
>Given that they've never associated with me, I find it interesting
>that they should be asked to dissociate.
Really? You really should make up your mind about this. First
you claimed no association and when faced with your own words, denied
that you had tried to dissociate yourself from the organization. Recall
that I had written "You denying any association with ISKCON is absolutely
ludicrous"; in your response of August 7 (06:42:41 GMT), you wrote
"Please show me a quote denying_any_association."
Hmmm...so you deny and don't deny an association at the same
time...how convenient!
>
>> Clearly, Mr. Pai has been involved in trying to remove Mr. Ajay
>>Shah as moderator of soc.religion.hindu because the latter wanted a
>>newsgroup named soc.religion.hindu.vaishnava rather than Mr. Pai's
>>favorite name of soc.religion.vaishnava.
>
>As I've pointed out many times before, you're still wrong, and it does
>you no good to repeat this claim. It also does you no good to claim a
>host of other things which you've also been claiming all of this time.
Your co-advocate for SRH Reorganization, Mr. Shrisha Rao, made
an interesting statement on 11/11/95:
[regarding approval or disapproval of soc.religion.vaishnava]
"That means that Dr. Maharaj and Mr. Shah could have a success
rate of, say, only around 40-50%, and still manage to derail the group
[referring to srv here]"
"Anyhow, if that happens, I'm sure the move to reorganize the
soc.religion.hindu.* hierarchy will gain much impetus; there is already
a groundswell of support which will not be easily denied, and if Dr.
Maharaj and Mr. Shah manage to stop SRV using their fraudulent practices,
then they will face a tidal wave of opposition that will uproot them from
their home territory."
It's statements like these, Mr. Pai, that makes me think that
the SRH reorg advocates like you and Mr. Rao have personal vindictiveness
on your minds. The above statement shows the direct connection in the
minds of SRH reorg advocates between Mr. Shah's opposition to SRV and
an attempt to reorganize SRH.
>Your problem, of course, is that in your attempts to bolster your
>"main argument," you've engaged in a series of, well, lies. These have
>done little to support your "main argument," and I note that you've
>repeatedly shied away from retracting those claims or even answering
>them.
Mr. Pai, *you* should be the last one accusing others of lying.
As Badri Seshadri has traced, *you* sent a spate of articles to SRV
under the alias "Sai's Mom", violating the charter of the very group
you've been so adamant about. Let me quote Badri (August 9, 01:55:52
GMT):
"There have been several anonymous mails lately. Some of them
were in response to Bon Giovanni's posts where he had changed the From:
address to get past the censorship. But afterwards, there have been a
spate of postings designed mainly to wreak havoc with the already fragile
newsgroup.
Checking the records, the first of such posting, under the name
'Sais Mom' has come from Vivek Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu)."
Badri provides some other interesting information about you in
a later post (he's responding directly to Mr. Pai in this post):
"I have still not heard anything from anyone regarding the
illegitimate, forged cancellations of postings from other users or the
secret censorship etc. till this date...Why don't we resolve this once
and for all? I wouldn't accuse anyone of anything if I didn't have the
evidence. Did I not write to you in the past when you cancelled postings
from Jai Maharaj? Did I not request you not to do so even if postings
from Jai Maharaj were off-topic, and rather ask the moderators to deal
with the situation? I did precisely the same with Shrisha Rao when he
had cancelled postings from Rajesh Venugopalan of Purdue...Did you censor
Bon Giovanni? or did Shrisha Rao do that? or did Henry Groover do that?
If so why? Why were the subscribers of soc.religion.vaishnava not told
about that? Who made those policy decisions? I am sure that these would
be some of the questions you would like to be answered if the same thing
happened with another newsgroup, say soc.religion.hindu...I don't care
about what problems Bon Giovanni has with you or with ISKCON or with
Shrisha Rao. This newsgroup is not for playing your petty personal
games. You are free to take your fights elsewhere."
Notice that your association with ISKCON, Mr. Pai, is public
perception (it's certainly not just me). As such, you're besmirching
the reputation of that organization by engaging in such unethical acts.
So, Mr. Pai, you're involved in censoring and then trying to defame
others by posting as "Sai's Mom". You might want to keep your high-horse
pontificating to yourself for a while (and you say *others* lie!)
By the way, I have now twice compared the SRH reorg plan to Mr.
Narsimha Rao's plan to control T. N. Seshan. You've cut out that part
in your responses every time. Why, Mr. Pai? Is it too close to reality?
Let me attach my usual disclaimer: I urge *everyone* to support
ISKCON; I myself support ISKCON completely. The likes of Pai should
*not* change anyone's opinion of the organization.
Sandeep Vaishnavi
