Possible spam: Index|View Source This message was identified as spam. Sorry Chief. I can't subscribe to conspiracy theories... yours or anybody else's.
If your actions as moderator are governed by a conspiracy theory of this sort, then I would rather not be part of your email group. I shall unsubscribe myself from your group. All the Best to you. I do hope you will choose not to moderate out any of our exchanges this morning... including the one earlier that asked your members to email me directly if they want to continue receiving my despatches. Warmly, Krish On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:10 PM, sroy1947 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Krish, > > Unfortunately this will move us into the domain of "Mir Jafars of RTI". > > There is a concentrated assault by Mir Jafars (former babus corrupted > by foreign funds, awards, IC-ships etc. - now masquerading as RTI > gurus and activists) on the basic structure of the RTI Act. Hum > Janenge is a nest / den of these vipers - mainly concentrated in > Maharashtra (I have nothing against Maharashtra or Maharashtrians) and > controlled by NRIs. The CIC is another such den. > > There are a series of SECRET (ie. not on CIC website) decisions in > recent past (last 1 year) out of the CIC CURTAILING RTI via section 6 > using section 4 as the excuse. Section 4(4)is a pivot to this wherein > the MJs and ICs work hand in glove. The entire recent CIC 3rd > convention was "dominated" by these Mir Jafars. I am also privy to a > lot of information concerning all this which is not in the public domain. > > For instance, it is a matter of public record that C'IC Habibullah got > handed over secret PMO documents marked CONFIDENTIAL to 3 of these Mir > Jafars in my presence (and over my firm objections), within 72 hours > of their RTI request, in a matter involving a most serious 8(1)(a) > exemption and by bypassing all procedural safeguards in RTI Act. Would > he do the same for you or me? > > People like you, and I am very sorry to say this, are either pawns of > these Mir Jafars or idiots if you persist with your foolishness > concerning so-called "inspection" allowed by the Explanation to 4(4). > > We are open to "healthy discussion", but not if the participants run > away to the cozy sheltered environs of HJ (like Sandeep Jalan) or > switch off their outgoing to RI when called to account. You will > remember that we had elaborately commented to this dangerous line of > thinking - which stands unanswered here. > > Please also remember that it is always the ignorant idiots (don't take > this personally) who f*** up the RTI scene for other RTI users, by > these "binding" decisions of the CIC and SIC in their cases which are > invariably cited when we appear in ours. > > PS: I would request other members (pro and anti or just neutral) to > intervene, have their say, and moderate our discussions, since the > only thing I shall moderate in future is my language / tone. > > Sarbajit > > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Krishnaraj Rao" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dear Sarabjit, > > > > As per dictionary.com, Moderator means: > > 1) a person who moderates. > > 2) a person who presides over a panel discussion > > > > So why don't you moderate discussions, rather than attempting to > dominate > > them? > > > > Why don't you let at least a few of your numerous group members form > their > > own opinions before putting forward your own overpowering, sarcastic > views? > > > > By doing so, you are killing healthy discussions at birth. > > > > Warmly, > > Krish > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
