Hi Tanvirji 20/9

[Guest guest]

Dear Tanvir-ji,

 

Well my comments r not personal but Aushutoshi's himself as he said in

a few posts that he does not believe in gods/deities or remedies

related to them and BPHS and other works do suggest remedies related

to some of these.

 

I agree as longs as anyone reading a chart if others fill in it is

good enough and he allows them freedom to do so, I have no doubt on

that either I felt any member who moderates such a site titled Jyotish

remedies can make best use if he has such a background himself, as

well, I did discover Sriganesh ji has also such a background and as I

have admited I hardly know the site from 8 months and others here r

there for a longer time so I had suggested a name i felt that was more

occuring , but as Sriganesh or Tatvamsai or anyone can also fill such

slot if they r willing that you can recall or associate with will add

value.

 

The choice is surely yours finally and lets give this a shot and see

if we need any changes in sometime later.

 

we must give this a fair run and see, my coments are mere suggestive

and nothing more the voices that had protested are here longer than me

so I am not sure how they read the situationa nnd how many may remain

here, I really missed sri Vatem krishna-jis role here who is busy in a

new place,job. some felt i had filled the vaccum left by him, but i

know anyone here gets better with time and he had spent a long time

and had a distinct style of doing his analysis. both of us have the

ICAS roots and have done what best we can offer to the member querries

here.

 

In whatever time I have i can fill in will do my bit here. I have

already stated if I am less present here it is only my commitments

that can take my time else will do spend as much as I can for glory of

Jyotishya.

 

Thanks

 

prashant

 

 

, "Tanvir Chowdhury"

<tanweera wrote:

>

> Dear Prashant Ji

>

> Thanks. If you feel another poll is needed, please create. Many

> forums restrict members from creating polls but here you can.

> Also, if you (and some others) think that Ashutosh Ji's atheism is a

> problem (I am not sure whether he is an atheist or not, but still)

> and a religiou, God fearing moderator should be added then I will

> judge how many of people think that another moderator is needed and

> then I will arrange a vote again.

>

> However, as I think that the most needed quality in a moderator that

> he should be JUST and UNBIASED, atheism or anything does not really

> matter. For an example, if a person is just and unbiased, he could

> moderate JR even if he does not believe in Jyotish ! It is about

> fair judgement and giving/assuring rights to members through

> limiting hates, attacks, meanness etc. So just being unbiased and

> just would suffice.

>

> Awaiting your valueable suggestion.

>

> Regards

> Tanvir

>

>

>

>

> , "YOUR ONLINE ASTROLOGER"

> <gbp_kumar@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Tanjir ji,

> >

> > I was just reading only your messages and none others in a row as I

> > rarely get to read yours and is nice to see u active here.

> >

> > I read ur msgs to Pt arjuns after I read urs to mine and I never

> know

> > the picture u have covered till then, else would not have still

> > suggested the same line i took when i suggest a poll a few days

> ago or

> > fesh poll now

> >

> > but whatever I know of u, u r kind and reasonable as when u

> lifted my

> > ban u had shown good reason and valued feed backs, for what little

> I

> > know arjun he is a knowledgele person but can't say why this

> > misunderstands have come he has always shown u in good esteem so

> far.

> >

> >

> > the ones who wrote on my message but framed their own line on the

> > siking ship was from a fear I felt that if few readers who

> contribute

> > seriously will be bad for such a good site.

> >

> > This was a suggestive one only not a call for anyone to take a

> life boat.

> >

> > I know ur a good judge and will do the best as always

> >

> > and the numbers I am not sure unless we split it as i gave many

> > victims of Bhaskar may still want him banned but as it is clubbed

> with

> > asutosh as moderator can't surely say if they want him also in same

> > numbers. I guees. this if from the point of his opposition my

> position

> > was always clear no issues if he is there just that any other

> beliver

> > also needs to be in that is all.

> >

> >

> > I may post again tom only after seeing the the mails have a few eye

> > hecks up y'day and tommorrow so not doing strainful readings this

> I

> > have to think and type need not look at the monitor for it so some

> > typos are also a pleanty.

> >

> > btw i have a sight of 6/60, Nystagmus, low vision, long sight

> > Extrophia [that is one eye is not sensitive to light unless other

> is

> > closed) but for the lvoe of spreading astrology here I have no

> otehr

> > vested interest i have had many good new comers clarify their

> doubts

> > on the subject and is a rewarding time here.

> >

> > Thanks

> >

> > Prashant

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Prashant,

 

I think Sri.Tanvir has explained everything in detail to you why he

has to resort to this recourse. still your continuing mails on this

subject is a mystery. why and for what purpose u r trying to sell

this two moderator concept? where is the end to it..?

 

can u elaborate on certain points again and again raised in your

mails..

1. you say ur comments are not personal but then why u r naming

ashutosh..in each and every mail.

 

2. could you explain what is the link between the belief in gods and

prescribing remedies as suggested in jyotish classics...u r trying

to read/do too much citing the name of religion.

 

3. U r seeing the freedom u r enjoying but still u say //he allows

them freedom to do so// ...am not getting ur intentions..

 

4. //I felt any member who moderates such a site titled Jyotish

> remedies can make best use if he has such a background himself//

 

I really could not get what u r intending to say..the title JR is

preamble and u need to see/read/understand the main objects of the

forum..which in my opinion does not really demand religious

background...this fact again has been clarified by Tanvir...i pray u

get the message loud and clear and inspite of this ur repeated msgs

mean / convey some other motives...

 

 

5. //well, I did discover Sriganesh ji has also such a background //

 

Please dont involve and take my name as my religion taught me to

renounce everything and not demand. For your info, Tanvir is more

informed and he knows what to do in the best interest of his own

baby...Nobody has asked you to quote or give names but u still keep

this matter alive for your own reasons...

 

6.//I have admited I hardly know the site from 8 months and others

here r there for a longer time so I had suggested a name i felt that

was more occuring , but as Sriganesh or Tatvamsai or anyone can also

fill such slot if they r willing that you can recall or associate

with will add value.//

 

U mean to say now the site has no value with tanvir and ash as

moderators...? All these days what u were doing...U urself admit

that u just 8 months in this group but u talk as if u own this group

trying to sell ur concept...

 

7. //The choice is surely yours finally and lets give this a shot

and see if we need any changes in sometime later. we must give this

a fair run and see, my coments are mere suggestive and nothing more

the voices that had protested are here longer than me so I am not

sure how they read the situationa nnd how many may remain here//

 

see the colourful words...how nicely u r again selling..good. Thanks

a lot and u need not have any fears (rather i say it is your wish).

It is an institution and it will remain for years to come with the

grace of god and tanvir has done lot of hardwork and it will always

be rewarded irrespective of whether u remain or i remain..we may

come and go....but it will remain.

 

8. Abt ur mentioning abt Sri.Vattem krishnanji...yes i respect and

he is true professional to the core and he always sticked to reading

requests and never went out of focus...

 

FINALLY I WISH TO CLOSE THIS MAIL COPYING PARA FROM EARLIER MAIL OF

BLISSWITHIN

***Let's not confuse facts. This is not really democracy. This is a

started by someone and they obviously are entitled to do

what they feel is the best. And why not. After all it was them who

put in the time and effort to make this a successful popular group.

They should retain that right. I think the problem lies in our

expectations that it should be a democracy.***

 

thanks and all the best wishes

 

sriganeshh