Dear Group After being duly flattered that Sarabjit describes me as "senior member" and "FAA" (which I have not been for quite some time), and duly noting with approval that Parivartan's advocates have not responded to the foreign funded allegations, am now hoisting some more Mir (and Mira) Jafars of RTI on their own petards.
You wrote: > " These f***ers (sorry I am still in Sackhim mode) can get away with it > because of their Mir Jafars in RTI movement aka Shekhar Singh, Aruna > Roy etc who tampered with the wording of this section (this is a > matter of public record) to the detriment of RTI cause." You would be interested in this little piece leaked by Habibullah (Seema is related to him and a brilliant Stephanian herself). http://www.indianexpress.com/story/299921.html# I quote: "Testing RTI: Govt vs activists, Pricewaterhouse vs Google" "Leading RTI activists, including Aruna Roy and her Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) and Shekhar Singh and his National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) have launched their own alternative study. They have formed RAAG (RTI Accountability and Assessment Group) which will examine what they call "the RTI regime." Significantly, Google Foundation has stepped in to make this study possible by offering $250,000 as an initial grant. RTI activists, using foreign funds themselves, say they are not worried about money from a foreign source, but are annoyed at the way, a "foreign organization" (Pricewaterhouse) with "little or no expertise in the manner in which RTI works in India" is being asked to assess the efficacy of RTI. " HE HE HELO LOL ROL Ashish btw, if anyone is upset with such posts - expel the f'ers. --- In [email protected], "sroy1947" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dear Gentleman (Bimal), > > Welcome to [RTI_India]. This group is not to be confused with > [Indiarti], [Hum Janenge], and some other groups. Here *I* am the > Moderator and my Co-Moderator (although sleeping) is not inferior to > Kumbhakarna for new members when he awakes. > > In this group we do not deal in "suppositions" but in "facts". We aim > to provide perfectly authentic information and guidance to our members > so that they can achieve TRUTH and PURPOSE in life. > > The real problem which Avinash (we are all on first name basis here) > faces is connected with a warped interpretation of 7(3)(a) by certain > Information Commissions (and which was worked out by I.C A.N.Tewari of > CIC and circulated at their Trade Union Conference last year). These > f***ers (sorry I am still in Sackhim mode) can get away with it > because of their Mir Jafars in RTI movement aka Shekhar Singh, Aruna > Roy etc who tampered with the wording of this section (this is a > matter of public record) to the detriment of RTI cause. > > Sarbajit > Moderator > > --- In [email protected], "Bimal Khemani" <bimal.khemani@> > wrote: > > > > > > Gentleman, > > Kindly refer to section 7 (6) which clearly states > > > > "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub section (5), > > the person making request for the information shall be > > provided the information free of charge where a public > > authority fails to comply with the time limits specified > > in sub-section (1). > > > > and I suppose ur case comes in this category, so tell the > > FAA to direct the PIO to provide the information free of > > any charge. > > > >
