[WikiEN-l] Response to Edmund Poor, Ray Saintonge and Sean Barrett

Wed Nov 12 02:56:04 UTC 2003

I don't want to prolong this thread either. I shall try my best not 
to prolong this thread (I shall however reply to Brian Corr's post
apart from this mail and give him information he needs).

Meanwhile, my request to you is to look at the points I raised in an 
OBJECTIVE MANNER. 

Please calm down and for a moment think over this. If VR Krishna 
Iyer's claims against India can be posted as a legitimate point of
view and he is treated as a respectable person, surely you will
agree that the following information about Bill Clinton should be
posted in the article on Clinton. I want you guys to calm down and
answer if it is acceptable to you to post the claims below as fact.

Here is some information for you from their (Marxist) magazine.
http://www.flonnet.com/fl1707/17070190.htm
The very first major round of protest against Clinton's visit was held under the aegis of the All India Anti-Imperialist Forum, a group formed in 1995.
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, president of the forum, said that the U.S. President was being a surrogate for American corporate power.
Expressing resentment at the red carpet welcome extended to Clinton, the Convention held that the so-called champion of peace, upholder of democracy and votary of human rights was the perpetrator of the worst form of criminal activities in the international political arena. It accused Clinton of having "launched murderous missile attacks on sovereign countries such as Afg hanistan and Sudan on the plea of fighting terrorism, while the U.S. administration itself had been aiding and abetting terrorist groups.

And here is his claim about a conspiracy (his word, not mine) -
http://www.ahrchk.net/hrsolid/mainfile.php/1995vol05no01/1875/
"I am not anti-West. The poor in the West are also suffering. But all these collaborations to manufacture Jaguars and fancy cars in our countries are basically a conspiracy to defeat human rights."

Shouldn't that be posted as a legitimate point? 
Please do not avoid answering the above question. It is not intended
for rhetoric effect. It is intended to demonstrate to you that it is
wrong to assume that the person in question is objective and truthful
about India but not USA.

-----------------
Edmund Poor wrote:

> I am beginning to lose my patience with the length and 
> contentiousness of this thread.
> Rick, please don't fan the flames any more; give it a rest, please.

If you guys calmed down and wondered for a moment if there is a
possibility that I could be right and I have been the one trying to
behave properly (until I faced hostility here instead of help), it
might help everyone.
If you go to the various topics and see who was the one who tried 
to discuss the issues, you will find that it was I. You will also
find that I asked Brian Corr to help out as an arbitrator.

The silence I met on the Talk boards is what made me bring it up here.
For a moment, why don't you try thinking on the following lines.
"If VR Krishna Iyer is the kind of person who comes up with
conspiracy theories against Americans, is there a possibility 
that libertarian might be right? Maybe I should look at it 
objectively instead of dismissing it as I have done so far."

> Libertarian, please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a place 
> to "post" your point of view or argue about it. We are trying to 
> write neutral articles about topics.

Correct. This was *MY* point. Check out the talk pages. *I* was the
one who wanted facts. I was told that if there is a POV, it has to
be posted. In that case, shouldn't every POV be posted? 
Please enlighten me - why am I wrong in saying that either all POVs
must be posted or none must be posted?

I am in favor of only those POVs which are based in facts?

Why am I wrong in asking for facts to be represented?

> If there is controversy about a topic you care deeply about, you 
> have some choices:
> 1. Don't write about it here, if you can't accept our Neutral Point 
> Of View (NPOV) editorial policy.

I've accepted it. I'm pointing out violation of that policy by some
abusers.

> 2. Stop and ask for help, every time someone reverts one of your 
> edits. An experience writer (like me :-) will come to your aid, and 
> help you revise your edit so that it is accepted by others.

I am sorry to say this, but this is exactly what I did. Instead of
help, I faced hostility, abuses and name-calling. This is the sad
truth. No one offered to help until I retaliated with hostility.

> There is no third way. Complaining about how everyone is unfair 

Please go back and read my posts. I was asking for help. I was the
one who asked for arbitration. I was the one who did due diligence 
by posting facts. I was ridiculed and told that I am a "Hindu
nationalist" and my posts were branded "rants" and I was told that
Communists in India were objective rising above their prejudices 
and why, they may not be Communists at all! That I was making it
up that some people were Communists!

> will never get you anywhere, and eventually you will either be 
> hounded out (as it will seem) or get kicked out (if you get so 
> upset that you start deliberately breaking the rules).

I have not broken any rules. Why is asking for help wrong.

> I think you ought to try option #2: pick ONE SMALL PROBLEM and ask 
> about it. Then stop. And wait. Give people time to respond. 

I think you ought to respond to option #2 instead of ridiculing
the person who came here out of respect for you asking for help.
--------------
Ray Saintonge  wrote:

> In the interests of maintaining peace in the family, I will 
> restrain myself in my attempts to be tauntingly truthful in matters 
> relating to India. ;-)

Yes Ray, maybe you think I was making it up when I talked of 
Communists. Why don't *you* arbitrate. I'll provide you the input
you need. Even though you've been hostile to me, I am very confident
because facts are on my side.

Even though I feel uncomfortable about trusting Americans (no offense
here, but it is my belief that Americans do not try to take the
factually correct position but try to "accomodate" all sides and
many times that even allows pure fiction to be represented as fact),
why not? Why don't you look at the points I send in for Brian Corr's
benefit and see if there is any merit in them.

Let us go point by point on the issues I raise. What do you say?
Let Ed Poor and Sean Barrett be part of the team too. I hope you
will learn the way Communists operate. All I want is that you see
things point by point (not think that you'll give me 50% of the
points and the Communists 50% of the points and that constitutes
the truth.)

> Your observation is factually incorrect. John Turner was the most 
> recent foreign born prime minister.

You're right about where he was born, but he was born to a
Canadian citizen and so he was a Canadian. Most countries follow
the international convention (and have it as a law) that grants
citizenship as a right jus soli (citizenship by soil) or jus
sangunis (citizenship by blood). In Turner's case, he was born
of a Canadian mother and so he was a Canadian citizen.
We're not discussing the location of birth (for example, if
diplomats posted outside their home country have a child in a
foreign land, the child would still be eligible for citizenship
of the home country.)
USA too has foreign born Governors (Michigan has a Canadian born
woman while California has elected an immigrant from Austria.)
India is unique in the sense that it allows naturalized citizens 
to hold the highest offices.
-------------
Sean Barrett wrote:

> Very good. This is exactly the kind of thoughtful, well-reasoned 
> discourse that will bring all us ignorant Americans over to your 
> side.

Sean, my aim is not confrontation. I was taken aback at the hostility
I encountered on the list when I asked for help to counter people
who abuse Wikipedia. I was branded a "Hindu nationalist" and accused
of "rants". I assumed this is standard stuff for the list and used
harsh words. I think it makes sense to have less heat and more light.

Having said that, be careful what you say. In the above lines, you're
implying that it is not facts which will bring over Americans to 
my side, but pleasing them!

-libertarian

_______________________________________________
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com