i m sorry if i sound out of place, but IS THIS A GOOD GROUND FOR SETTLING PERSONAL DIFFERENCES...?
please, friends, let us work for a common cause, which i m sure we all are oriented to, that of fair discussion of RTI Act... ONLY best regards, nilesh On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:13 AM, sarbajit roy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Venkatesh > > A few brief numbered paras in case you want to reply. > > 1) It looks as though we shall have to award the decision to Ashish > after all. What a pity, I was rather hoping that you or Shekhar Singh > (remarkably silent on this group) would have been able to counter > Ashish's argument on the Court Fee Act. > > 2) Just FYI, "Ashish" was part of the core croup which drafted the RTI > Act de-novo after the disastrous FoI Act. Again FYI IC A.N Tiwari and > and Mr T.K.Vishwanathan were also part of that group in case you > didn't know. > > 3) In this context I can also inform our members that neither Ms Aruna > Roy, nor Mr Shekhar Singh nor CHRI nor Arvind Kejriwal etc etc have > made any significant contributions to the language of the RTI Act > despite their public posturing and the bullshit they dish out in > public. > > 4) And while on the topic of plagiarism, the RTI Act did not > originate from the NAC notwithstanding the fact that the draft RTI > Bill was only available on the NAC website (tucked away) for public > viewing / comments (and not even on the Parliament site). > > 5) Oh, and before I forget,.the parting kick, the RTI Act / movement > did not come about because of what the MKSS did in Rajasthan (or the > NCPRI did anywhere else). > > 6) So if the "A" team of the NCPRI wants to debate these and/or other > RTI related matters, and now that you (Venkatesh) have thrown in the > towel, this uncensored, unmoderated and no-holds barred NEUTRAL forum > is always open for them (and you). > > Sarbajit > > PS: I truly hope that you never felt that you were ever censored or > moderated while posting here, because unlike you WE don't believe in > classifying people as "fringe elements" or "moderates". > > > On 6/21/10, Venkatesh Nayak > <[email protected]<venkatesh%40humanrightsinitiative.org>> > wrote: > > Dear friends, > > The recent threads of discussion on fees for appeals and before that the > > discussion on the implications of the Delhi High Court's decision in the > > matter of DDA v CIC have convinced me that this discussion group is in > the > > grip of some elements that would like to see RTI destroyed completely. > The > > moderator is also clearly in league with such elements. His > clarifications > > on the phone that I must not take these innuendoes and namecalling > > personally and that the extreme and often inane interpretations of the > RTI > > Act are only meant to encourage 'good debate' seem more and more > > unconvincing. This is not good debate. This is an anti-RTI agenda that is > > being carried out in the name of debate because other discussion groups > do > > not tolerate such fringe elements and chuck them out. > > > > Some of us have been trying to present views from the perspective of the > RTI > > Act- its original objectives and true intention. But as the old saying > goes- > > "none as blind as those who do not wish to see" we are unable to make > much > > headway. These threads of discussion are increasingly being directed in > the > > way of convincing the more moderate members to agree to destroying all > the > > protections that the RTI provides for citizens and placing more > restrictions > > on RTI and citizens. As this kind of agenda is being driven by some > members > > under the active collusion of the moderator, whatever those of us, truly > > interested in seeing RTI grow from strength to strength say, will not > help > > resolve these debates. Then these fringe elements resort to name calling > and > > obfuscating issues when their puerile arguments are met with sane and > > reasonable interpretations of the RTI Act which they find difficult to > > repudiate. > > > > RTI is more than lobbing balls at a tennis court as the moderator makes > it > > appear. Using the moderator's own metaphor for a little longer- importing > > the scheme of the Court Fees Act into the RTI Act is akin to playing a > game > > of tennis by the rules of soccer. The more moderate members of this group > > will understand what I am saying. > > > > This is all I would like to say on this or any other issue for a long > while > > starting now. > > Thanks > > Venkat > >
