[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
>Sheesh - let me make it simple:
No, Mr. Pai, I think *you* need things simplified for you. You
still haven't addressed your flip-flop that I pointed out above. It has
been shown again and again (by different posters) that you are associated
with ISKCON in public perception (I have quoted such posts). It is
therefore necessary that ISKCON dissociate from you as soon as possible.
Is that simple enough for you to understand?
>> Your co-advocate for SRH Reorganization, Mr. Shrisha Rao, made
>>an interesting statement on 11/11/95:
>> "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.
Conveniently snipping out the rest of the quote, Mr Pai? The
quote *clearly* shows how the SRH reorg advocate Shrisha Rao links the
SRH reorg with SRV. Are you denying that? The quote also clearly shows
that the SRH reorg was supported as revenge against Ajay Shah's
opposition to SRV. Surely you couldn't have missed that, Mr. Pai. If
you have, I suggest some help with the language.
>
>> 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.
>
So you're admitting that you sent an article as "Sai's Mom".
Interesting strategy...a mea culpa. Do you not understand how you
sending an article like that would be offensive to many people? Do you
not understand that you were trying to hide your identity? Do you not
understand that what you did was unethical? Basically, Mr. Pai, the word
most apt at this juncture is *BUSTED*.
>Yeah, and perhaps you should get the full story before you start
>pointing fingers once again.
Aha...right...whatever. Again, the word is *BUSTED*.
>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 in your warped sense of ethics, if you don't like the
opinions of your opponent, unethical acts are okay. Perhaps you should
retake (or take) Ethics 101.
>
>>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.
There you go again! You've been caught lying and yet, you don't
have the decency to apologize. Instead, you try to denigrate your
opponents. I'll tell you what's not in dispute, Mr. Pai: you are not
only a liar, you have no sense of decency.
>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.
>
For the sake of society, get off your perilously perched
pedestal! You're in absolutely *no* position to accuse others of lying.
You've been caught lying and that's all there is to it. Your accusations
of poor reading skills are amusing, I admit. Amusing and pathetic!
>> 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?
No, we shan't. The reason you have no response is because there
is no response you *can* make. You've been busted on this account too.
Clearly, the Narsimha Rao/T. N. Seshan analogy is very apt. If you think
it's possible for you, I'd like a response about this analogy. I'm
interested to see how you try to squirm out of this one.
Sandeep Vaishnavi
>
>-Vivek
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
