it is indeed heartening to hear that from you. just that the preceding posts in this thread did not voice the same, and hence the confusion.
incidentally, i fail to imagine how you developed the notion that i walked in here with preconceived notions... LOL rgds, nilesh On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:49 AM, sarbajitr <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear Nilesh > > I don't know why you think that there are personal differences. > We are all on the same team, fighting for > > A) Citizens to get information from the State (subject to just exemptions), > and in turn to be State friendly. > > B) Governments to be more organised, transparent and Citizen > friendly. > > C) Over-riding rights of 3rd parties to ensure that information > submitted by them in confidence, OR which relates to them, OR > which is their valuable intellectual property etc is NOT given away > to every lazy, incompetent, haraami who asks for it in RTI and > finds a terrified PIO who takes the easy way out by giving it to > such parasites. > (Please see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/message/1 > our first message to understand what this group has always stood > for) > > Sarbajit > (Group Mod) > PS: Welcome here, and leave all your preconceived notions at home. > > > --- In [email protected] <rti_india%40yahoogroups.com>, nilesh > suchdev <nilesh.such...@...> wrote: > > > > 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 <sroy...@...> 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 <venkat...@...<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 > > > > > > > > > > >
