[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <ghenDw95uB.5IL@netcom.com>,
Sandeep Vaishnavi <svaishnavi@bosco.meis.uab.edu> wrote:
>>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
I did, and if you could understand that the two sentences are not
equivalent, then you'd be much better off. Let me explain it to you,
using only small words:
There has not been any one from ISKCON who has said that I am a part
of that group. In fact, when a guy called the ISKCON place here and
asked if I spoke for them, he was told that I do not. So, it does not
make sense to say that any guy from ISKCON has said that I speak for
them.
There, Mr. Vaishnavi - I've spelled it out for you using only
monosyllabic words, with the exception of ISKCON. I take it then that
you should understand why I say that "they haven't associated with
me."
>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?
What would you suggest that they say - that I'm not a spokesperson for
ISKCON? The one person who was asked that question already answered in
the negative. So, please, suggest a proper way for ISKCON to express
that I'm not their spokesperson, and I'll help you find the right
people to sign that statement.
>>> "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
You've apparently missed the point, again. The claim has been that the
reorg was something started after SRV, but the quote shows that the
reorg was already in progress when Shrisha made that quote. Therefore,
any claim that it was started as revenge is a lie, plain and simple.
> So you're admitting that you sent an article as "Sai's Mom".
>Interesting strategy...a mea culpa.
Given that I helped test the bot software and know how the bot
processes things, it's not too hard to figure out that my article was
easily traceable, and that I did it intentionally.
>Do you not understand how you
>sending an article like that would be offensive to many people?
If you had any sense at all, you would have known that forged articles
had been posted to SRV by Bon Giovanni, posting as various names, and
that's why the Sai's Mom alias was used. Look up the term "Haagen Daas
Ananda" and see why Bon Giovanni added that into his forged articles.
>Do you not understand that you were trying to hide your identity?
You apparently don't understand that I wasn't.
>Do you not understand that what you did was unethical?
I posted a forged article in response to Bon Giovanni's multiple
forged articles. I find it a little hard to believe that you find this
to be ethically questionable.
>Basically, Mr. Pai, the word most apt at this juncture is *BUSTED*.
Busted? You've broken something? You must have slipped on something
illogical you spat out. Try seeing a doctor.
>>Yeah, and perhaps you should get the full story before you start
>>pointing fingers once again.
>
> Aha...right...whatever. Again, the word is *BUSTED*.
Please go ahead and say whatever you want to say,
Mr. Vaishnavi. However, I'm not the only one noticing that these
personal attacks are allowed to continue on SRH for a reason.
>>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.
Perhaps you should check your facts before opening your mouth, again.
>>>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.
Et tu, Sandeep? Please show me any statement of mine which you believe
to be a lie, and if I can't show you why you're mistaken, I will
apologize. Of course, I expect you to have an adequate reading
comprehension, which you have not yet exhibited.
More to the point, you have repeatedly snipped the quotes I pointed
out where you exaggerate greatly, to the point of lying.
>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.
Untrue! I wear long pants and dress shirts most of the
time. Sometimes, in hot weather, I wear knee-length shorts and pocket
t-shirts, but I've never worn anything more revealing in
public. Stating that I have no sense of decency is a charge that you
could not possibly make stick.
>>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!
Suggesting that you must be lying because a person of your position
have such poor reading skills is hardly a pedestal. If someone really
couldn't understand the explanations I gave and was working towards a
position of responsibility, then I would fear for anyone who had to be
subject to them.
>You're in absolutely *no* position to accuse others of lying.
On the contrary - your opening salvos started with lies.
>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!
If they were so pathetic, then why do you keep removing my
explanations when you repeatedly make the same accusations? That's
more than slightly telling.
>>> 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.
"Busted" as a proper verb? How cute. Perhaps you can now say that I'm
no homie of yours and that you and your posse don't hang with
me. However, I would like to point out that moderation panels are now
the norm for new proposals, and that Mr Shah himself has told Tale
that eventually SRH will have a moderation panel rather than a single
moderator, if what Tale tells the reorg proponents is accurate.
>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.
So please explain why Seshan would suggest to Rao that the panel be
expanded. I believe that is the proper analogy, and the burden is now
once again on you. If you'd like, I'll provide the quote from Tale
indicating that the moderation appeals committee is to one day become
the moderation panel, without ever going to a vote. Tale, if you
aren't aware, is David Lawrence, moderator of news.announce.newgroups,
and basically the guy who runs the newsgroup creation process.
-Vivek
>
>
> Sandeep Vaishnavi
>
>>
>>-Vivek
>>--
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
