Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 1999 At 5:54 -0800 1/17/99, COM: Goloka Candra (das) JPS (Malaysia) wrote: >On the other hand, the GHQ, for all their faults, were only engaged in >preparing (or conspiring as you would like to say) their paper for >submission to the GBC for action. Now you can understand who's really in >ISKCON. Yes, we all are, including the GHQ members. I'm saying that GHQs actions don't *represent* ISKCON. The GBC's actions do (does "ultimate managing authority" ring a bell?), which is why I quoted them. So if one group of devotees act outside the parameters of decent conduct established by the managing authority, and their actions are not condoned by the organization - they do *not represent the organization*. Thus, revealing all their dirty laundry is more of a form of purging and allows the organization to distance itself publically from some very un-vaisnava like practices. Sometimes it is actually very helpful to a society to share past events that have happened within the organization, but of which the management strongly disapproves. Take the example of the recent press releases on the child abuse which had been committed by ISKCON members. ISKCON distanced itself from the abusive behaviors shown by several of its members and washed this "dirty laundry" too in public last fall (in newspapers all over the world). Did you disagree with that "dirty laundry washing" too? Similarly, many individuals, both inside and outside ISKCON, know that there are sexist members of our society who would like nothing better than to oppress women and limit their opportunities for devotional service. Many of us have heard the foul language before and many devotees have told me that they wondered if this is actually something approved of by the leadership. So now everything is out in the open and those people know that: No, the ISKCON leadership does not approve of such behaviors. That will ultimately serve ISKCON well. Besides, I have to ask again: WHat happened to the gratitude to Ardhabuddhi expressed by both Ameyatma and Guru-Krsna Prabhus on behalf of GHQ in their early papers? They stated that the GHQ members were glad that everything was now out in the open. Yet, I still have not seen a single thank you letter to mahanidhi Prabhu. ????? Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 1999 At 5:54 -0800 1/17/99, COM: Goloka Candra (das) JPS (Malaysia) wrote: >On the other hand, the GHQ, for all their faults, were only engaged in >preparing (or conspiring as you would like to say) their paper for >submission to the GBC for action. Now you can understand who's really in >ISKCON. Yes, we all are, including the GHQ members. I'm saying that GHQs actions don't *represent* ISKCON. The GBC's actions do (does "ultimate managing authority" ring a bell?), which is why I quoted them. So if one group of devotees act outside the parameters of decent conduct established by the managing authority, and their actions are not condoned by the organization - they do *not represent the organization*. Thus, revealing all their dirty laundry is more of a form of purging and allows the organization to distance itself publically from some very un-vaisnava like practices. Sometimes it is actually very helpful to a society to share past events that have happened within the organization, but of which the management strongly disapproves. Take the example of the recent press releases on the child abuse which had been committed by ISKCON members. ISKCON distanced itself from the abusive behaviors shown by several of its members and washed this "dirty laundry" too in public last fall (in newspapers all over the world). Did you disagree with that "dirty laundry washing" too? Similarly, many individuals, both inside and outside ISKCON, know that there are sexist members of our society who would like nothing better than to oppress women and limit their opportunities for devotional service. Many of us have heard the foul language before and many devotees have told me that they wondered if this is actually something approved of by the leadership. So now everything is out in the open and those people know that: No, the ISKCON leadership does not approve of such behaviors. That will ultimately serve ISKCON well. Besides, I have to ask again: WHat happened to the gratitude to Ardhabuddhi expressed by both Ameyatma and Guru-Krsna Prabhus on behalf of GHQ in their early papers? They stated that the GHQ members were glad that everything was now out in the open. Yet, I still have not seen a single thank you letter to mahanidhi Prabhu. ????? Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 1999 > Let's face it, we can't pretend that our actions doesn't affect the > organisation we belong to. This is the point: that Ardhabuddi dasa and > associates ought to have known that their actions in annonymously sending > selected texts from a COM private conference to VNN would smear ISKCON's > image. Yes, any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them is going to be smeared. GHQ associating itself with ISKCON smears ISKCON. Taht is the primery cause. Exposing it is secondary. > Yet they chose to go ahead, bypassing existing lines of authority. > Meaning: Either no faith in the internal authority system in ISKCON or > intending flagrant disrespect to the authority system. GHQ's proposal was that anyone who opposed them should be stripped of positions and expelled for ISKCON. They opposed the decision of the GBC to create a Women's Ministry and to have a woman as GBC. That is much more serious lack of faith then publicising something openly. Your priorities are seriously skewed. I know, I said I wasn't going to comment on GHQ anymore, but this kind of word jugglery is too blatant to ignore. I am unable to tolerate it. > > > On the other hand, the GHQ, for all their faults, were only engaged in > preparing (or conspiring as you would like to say) their paper for > submission to the GBC for action. Now you can understand who's really in > ISKCON > Your servant, > Goloka Candra dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 17, 1999 > Let's face it, we can't pretend that our actions doesn't affect the > organisation we belong to. This is the point: that Ardhabuddi dasa and > associates ought to have known that their actions in annonymously sending > selected texts from a COM private conference to VNN would smear ISKCON's > image. Yes, any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them is going to be smeared. GHQ associating itself with ISKCON smears ISKCON. Taht is the primery cause. Exposing it is secondary. > Yet they chose to go ahead, bypassing existing lines of authority. > Meaning: Either no faith in the internal authority system in ISKCON or > intending flagrant disrespect to the authority system. GHQ's proposal was that anyone who opposed them should be stripped of positions and expelled for ISKCON. They opposed the decision of the GBC to create a Women's Ministry and to have a woman as GBC. That is much more serious lack of faith then publicising something openly. Your priorities are seriously skewed. I know, I said I wasn't going to comment on GHQ anymore, but this kind of word jugglery is too blatant to ignore. I am unable to tolerate it. > > > On the other hand, the GHQ, for all their faults, were only engaged in > preparing (or conspiring as you would like to say) their paper for > submission to the GBC for action. Now you can understand who's really in > ISKCON > Your servant, > Goloka Candra dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > > Let's face it, we can't pretend that our actions doesn't affect the > > organisation we belong to. This is the point: that Ardhabuddi dasa and > > associates ought to have known that their actions in annonymously > > sending selected texts from a COM private conference to VNN would smear > > ISKCON's image. > > Yes, any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them > is going to be smeared. GHQ associating itself with ISKCON smears ISKCON. > Taht is the primery cause. Exposing it is secondary. Any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them is not going to be smeared so long as the option to resolve it internally had been scrupulously maintained. Those who chose to scuttle this option and expose it all outside smeared ISKCON. > > Yet they chose to go ahead, bypassing existing lines of authority. > > Meaning: Either no faith in the internal authority system in ISKCON or > > intending flagrant disrespect to the authority system. > > GHQ's proposal was that anyone who opposed them should be stripped of > positions and expelled for ISKCON. You just made a blanket statement without any justification whatsoever. Fact is: There was no GHQ proposal at that stage. It was just being brain-stormed. And certainly, not everybody in the GHQ is going to accept the above blanket statement being written into the final proposal. > They opposed the decision of the GBC > to create a Women's Ministry and to have a woman as GBC. That is much > more serious lack of faith then publicising something openly. Your > priorities are seriously skewed. Dissent should be allowed to express itself through the authorised channels. Better that than suppressing the right to disagree. The GHQ chose this loyalist approach of submitting their dissent on paper to the authority (GBC). On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had no other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you support their actions. > I know, I said I wasn't going to comment on GHQ anymore, but this kind > of word jugglery is too blatant to ignore. I am unable to tolerate it. Word jugglery? Please address the above issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > > Let's face it, we can't pretend that our actions doesn't affect the > > organisation we belong to. This is the point: that Ardhabuddi dasa and > > associates ought to have known that their actions in annonymously > > sending selected texts from a COM private conference to VNN would smear > > ISKCON's image. > > Yes, any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them > is going to be smeared. GHQ associating itself with ISKCON smears ISKCON. > Taht is the primery cause. Exposing it is secondary. Any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them is not going to be smeared so long as the option to resolve it internally had been scrupulously maintained. Those who chose to scuttle this option and expose it all outside smeared ISKCON. > > Yet they chose to go ahead, bypassing existing lines of authority. > > Meaning: Either no faith in the internal authority system in ISKCON or > > intending flagrant disrespect to the authority system. > > GHQ's proposal was that anyone who opposed them should be stripped of > positions and expelled for ISKCON. You just made a blanket statement without any justification whatsoever. Fact is: There was no GHQ proposal at that stage. It was just being brain-stormed. And certainly, not everybody in the GHQ is going to accept the above blanket statement being written into the final proposal. > They opposed the decision of the GBC > to create a Women's Ministry and to have a woman as GBC. That is much > more serious lack of faith then publicising something openly. Your > priorities are seriously skewed. Dissent should be allowed to express itself through the authorised channels. Better that than suppressing the right to disagree. The GHQ chose this loyalist approach of submitting their dissent on paper to the authority (GBC). On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had no other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you support their actions. > I know, I said I wasn't going to comment on GHQ anymore, but this kind > of word jugglery is too blatant to ignore. I am unable to tolerate it. Word jugglery? Please address the above issues. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > Any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them > is not going to be smeared so long as the option to resolve it internally > had been scrupulously maintained. Those who chose to scuttle this option and > expose it all outside smeared ISKCON. Say what? Please drink some hot milk and read this again. The GHQ texts smeared ISKCON. Exposing it did expose that smear. It didn't create the smear. > You just made a blanket statement without any justification whatsoever. > Fact is: There was no GHQ proposal at that stage. It was just being > brain-stormed. And certainly, not everybody in the GHQ is going to accept > the above blanket statement being written into the final proposal. The first thing that happened after the big expose was requests made to see where GHQ members stood on these issues. There was a lot of caviling, but no denials. If GHQers had disassociated thenselves from that position, then alot of reaction would have been avoided. But they din't hence the reaction. I am noting that you have made a vague statement here and have not directly distanced your self from that position. Personally, until I hear from GHQers that that is not their position, I have to assume that it is. The justification is that GHQers did make the statement and they have not repudiated it. > > > Dissent should be allowed to express itself through the authorised channels. > Better that than suppressing the right to disagree. The GHQ chose this > loyalist approach of submitting their dissent on paper to the authority > (GBC). > And the women took a position of establishing a ministry to deal with women's issues under the approval of the GBC. That is pretty loyalist. It is out in the open and approved by the GBC. The stated GHQ position was that the Women's Ministry should be abolished or at lest co opted. So who is suppressing the right to disagree? > On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this > process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had no > other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you > support their actions. > The Women's Ministry is part of that internal authority system. I have faith in it. Do GHQers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > Any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them > is not going to be smeared so long as the option to resolve it internally > had been scrupulously maintained. Those who chose to scuttle this option and > expose it all outside smeared ISKCON. Say what? Please drink some hot milk and read this again. The GHQ texts smeared ISKCON. Exposing it did expose that smear. It didn't create the smear. > You just made a blanket statement without any justification whatsoever. > Fact is: There was no GHQ proposal at that stage. It was just being > brain-stormed. And certainly, not everybody in the GHQ is going to accept > the above blanket statement being written into the final proposal. The first thing that happened after the big expose was requests made to see where GHQ members stood on these issues. There was a lot of caviling, but no denials. If GHQers had disassociated thenselves from that position, then alot of reaction would have been avoided. But they din't hence the reaction. I am noting that you have made a vague statement here and have not directly distanced your self from that position. Personally, until I hear from GHQers that that is not their position, I have to assume that it is. The justification is that GHQers did make the statement and they have not repudiated it. > > > Dissent should be allowed to express itself through the authorised channels. > Better that than suppressing the right to disagree. The GHQ chose this > loyalist approach of submitting their dissent on paper to the authority > (GBC). > And the women took a position of establishing a ministry to deal with women's issues under the approval of the GBC. That is pretty loyalist. It is out in the open and approved by the GBC. The stated GHQ position was that the Women's Ministry should be abolished or at lest co opted. So who is suppressing the right to disagree? > On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this > process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had no > other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you > support their actions. > The Women's Ministry is part of that internal authority system. I have faith in it. Do GHQers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this > process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had > no other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you > support their actions. You are quite on the point, Goloka Candra prabhu - no faith in the internal authority system. True. So what you are going to do in this regard, in order to help me develop that faith? Will you continue here with your public agitation to hang and string "Ardhabuddhi das" immediately after he has disclosed himself, or will you finally approach that internal authority system and handle the case over to them? Where is your faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for the authority system whatsoever? Please do it through the internal authority system, not on some public COM forum. You (or anybody else for that matter) got supplied the name you wanted and hunted for, now take it and go with it where appropriate. Have faith into the internal authority system and stop simply brushing the ears of other person(s) in public for not having the same faith that you are not demonstrating yourself. Or is it anarchy going on in this society, with the rule "The strongest survive"? In that case, my advise to anybody: Do not disclose yourself when asked for it "humbly in the assembly of Vaisnavas". Forget it, don't get fooled. Stay in disclose, do not try honesty when "honesty" is simply the mean to pull you for your nose in order to get the chance to hang and string you up. It is very simple to understand, after all it these are your words: > Isn't there a line of authority within ISKCON itself for Mahanidhi dasa > and company to report to if he had felt aggrieved? Seems like this is the > crux of the whole problem. So, isn't there a line of authority within ISKCON for Goloka Candra das (and "company", eventually) to report to if he is feeling aggrieved? No, there is not. He will do it himself, on the spot. "Inside" of ISKCON. (Good greef, it makes one happy to know to be stoned and hung up "inside" and not "outside", in the "assembly of Vaisnavas" by self-proclaimed knowers of morality, truth, righteousness, ISKCON-inity, etc, - the pounders of aproaching the line of right authority... ) Plese kindly cease from attacing and judging me in public. You are doing wrong thing, it is not your business to do it. Chant, be happy, and have trust in the line of authority within ISKCON. ys mnd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this > process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they had > no other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. And you > support their actions. You are quite on the point, Goloka Candra prabhu - no faith in the internal authority system. True. So what you are going to do in this regard, in order to help me develop that faith? Will you continue here with your public agitation to hang and string "Ardhabuddhi das" immediately after he has disclosed himself, or will you finally approach that internal authority system and handle the case over to them? Where is your faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for the authority system whatsoever? Please do it through the internal authority system, not on some public COM forum. You (or anybody else for that matter) got supplied the name you wanted and hunted for, now take it and go with it where appropriate. Have faith into the internal authority system and stop simply brushing the ears of other person(s) in public for not having the same faith that you are not demonstrating yourself. Or is it anarchy going on in this society, with the rule "The strongest survive"? In that case, my advise to anybody: Do not disclose yourself when asked for it "humbly in the assembly of Vaisnavas". Forget it, don't get fooled. Stay in disclose, do not try honesty when "honesty" is simply the mean to pull you for your nose in order to get the chance to hang and string you up. It is very simple to understand, after all it these are your words: > Isn't there a line of authority within ISKCON itself for Mahanidhi dasa > and company to report to if he had felt aggrieved? Seems like this is the > crux of the whole problem. So, isn't there a line of authority within ISKCON for Goloka Candra das (and "company", eventually) to report to if he is feeling aggrieved? No, there is not. He will do it himself, on the spot. "Inside" of ISKCON. (Good greef, it makes one happy to know to be stoned and hung up "inside" and not "outside", in the "assembly of Vaisnavas" by self-proclaimed knowers of morality, truth, righteousness, ISKCON-inity, etc, - the pounders of aproaching the line of right authority... ) Plese kindly cease from attacing and judging me in public. You are doing wrong thing, it is not your business to do it. Chant, be happy, and have trust in the line of authority within ISKCON. ys mnd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 >Where is your >faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that >faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for >the authority system whatsoever? Touche! Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 >Where is your >faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that >faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for >the authority system whatsoever? Touche! Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > >Where is your > >faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that > >faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for > >the authority system whatsoever? > > Touche! > > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi Passe! Your servant, Goloka Candra dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > > Any organisation that has those types of texts associated with them is > > not going to be smeared so long as the option to resolve it internally > > had been scrupulously maintained. Those who chose to scuttle this option > > and expose it all outside smeared ISKCON. > > Say what? Please drink some hot milk and read this again. The GHQ texts > smeared ISKCON. Exposing it did expose that smear. It didn't create the > smear. The intent of the GHQ texts (though not always polite) was to express dissent through internal channels. The intent of those who exposed it outside was to smear the GHQ and by implication ISKCON. Where's the finer tissues that ought to have developed after all your hot milk drinking? > > You just made a blanket statement without any justification whatsoever. > > Fact is: There was no GHQ proposal at that stage. It was just being > > brain-stormed. And certainly, not everybody in the GHQ is going to > > accept the above blanket statement being written into the final > > proposal. > > The first thing that happened after the big expose was requests made to > see where GHQ members stood on these issues. There was a lot of caviling, > but no denials. If GHQers had disassociated thenselves from that > position, then alot of reaction would have been avoided. But they din't > hence the reaction. I am noting that you have made a vague statement here > and have not directly distanced your self from that position. Personally, > until I hear from GHQers that that is not their position, I have to > assume that it is. The justification is that GHQers did make the > statement and they have not repudiated it. I was referring to your statement that "the GHQ's proposal was that anyone who opposed them should be stripped of positions and expelled for ISKCON." This statement is not only sweeping but false. Repeat: fact is, there was no GHQ proposal at that time. It was just being brainstormed. So any mob pressure tactic of trying the force the GHQ members to take a stand immediately on that and other issues was premature. > > Dissent should be allowed to express itself through the authorised > > channels. Better that than suppressing the right to disagree. The GHQ > > chose this loyalist approach of submitting their dissent on paper to the > > authority (GBC). > And the women took a position of establishing a ministry to deal with > women's issues under the approval of the GBC. That is pretty loyalist. > It is out in the open and approved by the GBC. The stated GHQ position > was that the Women's Ministry should be abolished or at lest co opted. So > who is suppressing the right to disagree? Co-opting still leaves the channels open for disagreement. > > On the other hand, it can inferred that those who tried to pre-empt this > > process by leaking it outside to ISKCON-unfriendly places, as if they > > had no other resort, showed no faith in the internal authority system. > > And you support their actions. > > > The Women's Ministry is part of that internal authority system. I have > faith in it. Do GHQers? You are deviating. The women's ministry are not the authorities to deal with culprits who leak out COM's private texts to ISKCON-unfriendly places. The GBC are the ultimate authorities of this internal system. The GHQ must have faith in their ultimate judgement (otherwise why would they be putting up a paper for submission to the GBC?). Do you also have faith in the GBC to match your declared explicit faith in the women's ministry? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 19, 1999 > >Where is your > >faith into the internal authority system? How can we have that > >faith when we see you screaming for linch, not caring for > >the authority system whatsoever? > > Touche! > > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi Passe! Your servant, Goloka Candra dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 1999 > > That's a good point you made about going through authority. In case you > didn't notice my earlier text, your case was brought to the attention of > the sysop in charge of COM (scene of your "crimes"). See, the first line > of authority. Let's await the decision. You did not notice that my text was no need to bring to the attention of the sysop anyway, since the sysop was already the receiver of it on the first place. And you refused to accept the sysop's (authority's) request to restrain from this particular polemic on COM since it is inflammatory with the potential to divide devotees into the fighting camps. And it is so. I have no problem with facing those who are eager to see the earth soaking with the blood of "Ardhabuddhi", eager for revanche for what he did to them - publicly exposed their actions. But I have problem with your doing it in front of everybody else what in turn involves other devotees in also (who will object you), thus creating the friction among devotees. I do not want it. You shoudn't either. > > Whatever else I said about you was said in reply to questions from those > who tried to justify your actions. If they continue in similar tack, so > will my replies. Either you are not aware of your own actions here, or you simply deliberately lying to all of us. When you proclaimed that Mahanidi dasa is to be stung up and hanged or at least kicked of COM, that was the "answer" on particularly nobody's justification of Mahanidhi das (at that moment). You were asked for apologies to somebody else, but instead went hanging Mahanidhi das. Then your hanging up me was objected by others, so then it goes... having you now talking "if they continue..." > > But isn't it my business to answer my email, especially when somebody puts > the question in a public text? If that text refers to your case, then any > answer will be seen as judgement of your actions. That cannot be avoided. > But thanks anyway for your last bit of advice. So you do whatever you think it is your business. When nobody asks you "What shall we do now with this Mahanidhi das", you can give the answer on that kind of e-mail that exists in your mind only. Since it's your business, right? And when you are asked by the sysop not to indulge in this particular debate, you go doing your business of not caring for it at all (so do I, but I am a criminal already, but you are not supposed to be like me). As I said, my intention is to try prevent these forum splitting over "Mahanidhi's case". That is the only reason why I am insisting that you go through the authority line to pursue the matter instead of doing in here. Otherwise I do not bother for myself. You got list with charges, you got the clear name, you got obviously the idea of the kind of punishment to be executed on. You got clear case, so to say. So go with it to whomever you consider to be the person in charge, and await for decision. Go to the GBC if you are still not satisfied. But do not create the frictions among devotees by taking the "justice" into your own hands here. Isn't that so simple to understand? -------------------------------- After all, what kind of "hero" you are playing here anyway? Without me you would have gotten no chance to jump (in lower case) on me for my neck. It is by my mercy that you have this nice opportunity to get the satisfaction of seeing "Ardhabuddhi's" blood. And you still depend on me for that in quite some extent. So be nice boy and cooperate with "mom" at least, if you are already so unthankful for what I have done for you. ys mnd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted January 20, 1999 > > That's a good point you made about going through authority. In case you > didn't notice my earlier text, your case was brought to the attention of > the sysop in charge of COM (scene of your "crimes"). See, the first line > of authority. Let's await the decision. You did not notice that my text was no need to bring to the attention of the sysop anyway, since the sysop was already the receiver of it on the first place. And you refused to accept the sysop's (authority's) request to restrain from this particular polemic on COM since it is inflammatory with the potential to divide devotees into the fighting camps. And it is so. I have no problem with facing those who are eager to see the earth soaking with the blood of "Ardhabuddhi", eager for revanche for what he did to them - publicly exposed their actions. But I have problem with your doing it in front of everybody else what in turn involves other devotees in also (who will object you), thus creating the friction among devotees. I do not want it. You shoudn't either. > > Whatever else I said about you was said in reply to questions from those > who tried to justify your actions. If they continue in similar tack, so > will my replies. Either you are not aware of your own actions here, or you simply deliberately lying to all of us. When you proclaimed that Mahanidi dasa is to be stung up and hanged or at least kicked of COM, that was the "answer" on particularly nobody's justification of Mahanidhi das (at that moment). You were asked for apologies to somebody else, but instead went hanging Mahanidhi das. Then your hanging up me was objected by others, so then it goes... having you now talking "if they continue..." > > But isn't it my business to answer my email, especially when somebody puts > the question in a public text? If that text refers to your case, then any > answer will be seen as judgement of your actions. That cannot be avoided. > But thanks anyway for your last bit of advice. So you do whatever you think it is your business. When nobody asks you "What shall we do now with this Mahanidhi das", you can give the answer on that kind of e-mail that exists in your mind only. Since it's your business, right? And when you are asked by the sysop not to indulge in this particular debate, you go doing your business of not caring for it at all (so do I, but I am a criminal already, but you are not supposed to be like me). As I said, my intention is to try prevent these forum splitting over "Mahanidhi's case". That is the only reason why I am insisting that you go through the authority line to pursue the matter instead of doing in here. Otherwise I do not bother for myself. You got list with charges, you got the clear name, you got obviously the idea of the kind of punishment to be executed on. You got clear case, so to say. So go with it to whomever you consider to be the person in charge, and await for decision. Go to the GBC if you are still not satisfied. But do not create the frictions among devotees by taking the "justice" into your own hands here. Isn't that so simple to understand? -------------------------------- After all, what kind of "hero" you are playing here anyway? Without me you would have gotten no chance to jump (in lower case) on me for my neck. It is by my mercy that you have this nice opportunity to get the satisfaction of seeing "Ardhabuddhi's" blood. And you still depend on me for that in quite some extent. So be nice boy and cooperate with "mom" at least, if you are already so unthankful for what I have done for you. ys mnd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
