From: fafat@usc.edu (Vijay Fafat)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Ravi Narayan and FFT
Date: 8 Nov 1992 12:21:21 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

From: ravi@sequoia.wpi.edu (Ravi Narayan)
|>From fafat@aludra.usc.edu

|> :) Nah, you're too modest :) And where does Doki stand on the same to same 
|> scale? :)

	ask him!

If you feel free to comment about Sridhar's rating, why this wimping on Doki
front? Is it a matter of:

1] Personal prerogative.
2] "I don't have to comment on everyone. I feel like commenting only
    about Sridhar.".
3] Doki is my dear friend and I don't want to offend him.
4] I refuse to answer on the grounds that the answer might get me in
   trouble with Doki and god forbid that :)    
5] It's none of your business.
6] Any other reason.            ???


	i never told you about crashing systems! in fact i was careful
	not to ;-) ;-). 

hee hee :) Sure thing. You never educated me about crashing systems ... :)


	here's the bottom line: newsgroups aren't
	meant to be policed... there are no "keepers" of unmoderated
	newsgroups. if you think i care a dime about whether all the
	readers of sci put in me in their kill file, you are very
	wrong! 

The outburst from wpi certainly did give that impression that there was a 
fluster because of the global kill. My apologies if I have been unduely naive.


	any loss from this adventure is not mine! hence my
	description of my attempts as "education".

vis-a-vis *your* posts, I would certainly agree. But your humour was mostly 
lost on most because of an anti-wpi bias, thanks to Doki.


|> them on e-mail. But a lot of stuff coming from wpi is unmistakably a ganged-up
|> concentrated effort to make a nuisance

	sir i cannot answer your imagination!

hee hee :) I'll let Shyamala,Nimmala and Kavuri to answer that...


	 suffice to say that i
	need no ganging up to make a nuisance of myself ;-) 

Which was what I did note in the Ajay Gadhasingh context.

	a quick	analysis of article contents, intended audience, obvious
	intent of posts from wpi should dispell further doubts in
	"unbiased" minds.

contents? In *Doki's* posts?? You must be kidding. Even he knows he's just
whiling away his time here :) And intended audience. Doki's m.o. is to pinch
the likes of Nimmala and Shyamala and then drag them into a flame war :). I
must say, though, that he succeeds admirably in this. So you ask for too 
much when you demand "unbiased" minds.


	with but limited success. here's one more way i suggest to you,
	a person on usenet, to improve the quality of the net: it is
	not necessary to react to each article appearing on usenet. the
	essential definition of this forum requires self-moderation. its
	no use asking me or whoever to do something... for example, i
	doubt i will enjoy the success, as measured in anticipated
	righteous response, on one of the real groups (such as say
	comp.os.research) since the readers take care of "themselves"
	rather than attempt to take care of others!!!

I don't think this is a right comparison. This being a cultural group, one
always gets into arguments, which, by their very nature, are subjective. Most
of the time, on groups like comp.* or sci.physics/maths, objective answers 
exist so it is a fairly cut-and-dried division, the arguments coming about
only because of a wrong interpretation of principles. on a cultural group, you
have the rajat Jains floating gifs and Nina patels looking for brides for 
"littil brother"s and none of this can be hooted off. So I don't understand
what you mean by "readers taking care of themselves". Is Doki taking care?
Is Ravi Narayan? Is FFT? Is an argument on some ethics "taking care of others"?
Is an expression of a wish that a particular group contribute more positively
(from the wisher's point of view, obviously) "an attempt to take care of
others"? And is'nt your statement about desisting from saying something which
gives an impression of "trying to take care of others" an attempt at gagging
the freedom of speech you were worried about? It's a double-edged sword.


|> 	Of course, with this, I have effectively been tagged by Doki et al
|> for swipes everytime I post :), with cliched comments, but I guess that's an
|> occupational hazard :)

	the only emotion evoked in me by such generalizations continues
	to be humour... they are blind, who will not see! ;-)

Sufficient precedent exists in the form of Shyamalas and Nimmalas for me to
generalize. They are blind who will not see *this* ! :)


FFT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When you gots it, you flaunts it...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian