[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <ghenDw5LoL.I8v@netcom.com>,
Sandeep Vaishnavi <svaishnavi@bosco.meis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>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
Sheesh - let me make it simple:
"they've never associated with me" - they've never come out and said
anything which could even resemble any sort of endorsement. Or, in the
active sense, they have never been the ones doing the associating.
>"Please show me a quote denying_any_association."
> Hmmm...so you deny and don't deny an association at the same
>time...how convenient!
No, the difference is who is the doer in the two sentences.
> Your co-advocate for SRH Reorganization, Mr. Shrisha Rao, made
>an interesting statement on 11/11/95:
But you don't mention digging up the other commentary on that
statement, which I'll point out:
> "Anyhow, if that happens, I'm sure the move to reorganize the
>soc.religion.hindu.* hierarchy will gain much impetus; there is already
In other words, the move to reorganize SRH was already extant at the
time Shrisha made this statement.
> 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",
One article as sais_mom hardly qualifies as a spate. Perhaps you
really should check your reading skills or ask Badri to verify. At the
time he wrote that note, there was exactly one article from me, and
after that, I sent a second.
>violating the charter of the very group
>you've been so adamant about. Let me quote Badri (August 9, 01:55:52
>GMT):
Could you please quote the part of the charter it violates? Thanks.
> Badri provides some other interesting information about you in
>a later post (he's responding directly to Mr. Pai in this post):
Yeah, and perhaps you should get the full story before you start
pointing fingers once again. For example, read the posts that have
appeared on the 13th to find that Badri didn't know the fully story.
> 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.
Again, Mr. Vaishnavi - please check your facts before calling
someone's actions unethical. Better yet, read one of those posts by
sais_mom which shows that the same person doing most of the kicking
and screaming has also advocated retro-moderation. A little odd, then,
for him (or anyone else) to call it unethical, don't you think?
>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!)
You do lie. That's not in dispute, I hope. You've done it in your
previous posts, and you've done it again. Either you lie, or your
reading comprehension skills are so poor that you're simply befuddled
most of the time. In either case, the effect is the same. For the sake
of society, though, I would hope it's the former and not the latter.
> 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?
Because I've found your logic to be lacking, and I generally don't
indulge every person who screams from the rooftops by responding to
every single accusation they feel it necessary to make. Shall we go
on?
-Vivek
