<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3059" name=GENERATOR>
<DEFANGED_style_0 </STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am surprised that these mails are appearing days
after the unfortunate mails which caused these responses were written. I had
expressed my views as soon as I read Shuddha's mail. But the mail never reached
the list. I wrote to Shuddha but the mail was never acknoledged. The mail is
also pasted below today's message. I strongly object any generalization about a
religion, caste or culture on the basis of an individual. Bongs should not have
been dragged in to the mess. We could have avoided quoting the unfortunate words
which occurred in Abhik's deplorable mail. I still maintain that bullying
someone, even if off list, on an issue related to an issue raised on list,
cannot be condoned. There could have been other ways of expressing
displeasure.</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The following is my mail which has thus far failed
to reach the list.</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Shuddha and all. The message that started this
mess was quite<BR>insensitive and unscientific in its approach. And so were some
responses,<BR>like one that linked invention of the computer and scientific
thinking to<BR>Christianity. Scientific development could be possible in the
west only<BR>after the discovery of pagan (not Christian) learning,
(renaissance). What<BR>we today consider facts caused many people their lives,
people with<BR>scientific thinking were burnt alive as heretics. Even today in
the name of<BR>the religion people are not being allowed contraceptives; there
is a very<BR>influential lobby in the US trying to ban abortion. Religion is a
big<BR>headache for gay and lesbian activists. I am not sure what do
various<BR>scriptures say about above mentioned issues, but I don't practice
any<BR>religion so know these religions from their practitioners only. It was
done<BR>all in the name of religion: Crusades between Christians and
Muslims,<BR>hanging and burning of the practitioners of (black magic) science,
slave<BR>trade, colonization and suppression of various cultures and
languages,<BR>Partition of India and violence related to it, demolition of the
mosque and<BR>the riots thereafter, Massacre in Gujarat, and blogs giving a
ranking as to<BR>which religion is more violent/terrorist. (My knowledge of
history is really<BR>poor). I am not afraid of hell, dozakh or nark ... so I
would like to say<BR>that religions should be banned from the public
sphere.</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I know there can be some rude messages in response
to my message but this is<BR>my opinion and I don't want any flaming even off
list, even if Shuddha may<BR>not consider it violation of list etiquettes. I beg
to differ from the<BR>following opinion/ruling of Shuddha</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"Abhik Samanta has written in his private capacity
to Vedavati, and not<BR>on the list. So his post (no matter how objectionable
and misogynist its<BR>content may be, which I think it is, even though I can
understand his<BR>outrage at Vedavati's clear act of hate speech) is not
technically a<BR>breach of list etiquette."</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>It might give precedence to a wrong practice. There
are better ways of<BR>expressing your displeasure, showering obcenities, even if
off list, on a<BR>member for an issue related to the list, should not be
condoned. Writing<BR>objectionable mails to the members off list in order not to
violate the list<BR>etiquettes is, in my opinion, akin to american government
kid-napping people<BR>and harassing them away from the main land so as to avoid
the law of the<BR>land. I deplore such practice.</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I am quite new to this list so not sure what the
Hindutva-vadis have been<BR>doing in the past, but if someone is insensitive
again and again why not ban<BR>that person or tell that person that such mails
will not be allowed on the<BR>list? it is technologically possible to ban
specific IP addresses, or mails<BR>with specific words in the body. Then
individuals can create message rules<BR>in their e mail clients to ban such
individuals, IP addresses or mails.<BR>Shouting obscenities is the worst, rather
no solution at all.</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Shuddhabrata
Sengupta" <<BR><A
href="mailto:shuddha@sarai.net">shuddha@sarai.net</A>></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: <<BR><A
href="mailto:reader-list@sarai.net">reader-list@sarai.net</A>></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: <<BR><A
href="mailto:abhikauliya@googlemail.com">abhikauliya@googlemail.com</A>></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 2:29 PM<BR>Subject:
Re: [Reader-list] vedavati thought you would like "wrap the body of<BR>muslim
terrorist with pig skin"</FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>> Dear All,<BR>><BR>> Let me clarify at
the very beginning that I find the contents of the<BR>> exchange between
Vedavati and Abhit (which we have all been subjected to<BR>> because of
Vedavati's forward, with comment, of Abhik's off list email<BR>> to her) sad
and deplorable. While Abhik's language betrays an<BR>> unfortunate misogyny,
Vedavati's postings and responses are not exactly<BR>> exemplars of
liberality and tolerance.<BR>><BR>> This is not the first time that
Vedavati Jogi has posted material on<BR>> this list that many on this list
will find objectionable, just as there<BR>> are many others on this list who
post material that Vedavati, and<BR>> perhaps some others on this list might
have found objectionable. We have<BR>> had other instances such as this in
the past with others as well. The<BR>> history of a list such as this grows
to accommodate all manner of<BR>> eccentricities, and that is a sign of the
health and robustness of a<BR>> free and open electronic space. It is in the
nature of an unmoderated<BR>> (that is uncensored) list such as this, that
some people will use the<BR>> platform to post material that many of us will
consider reprehensible.<BR>> However, I would suggest that one way to respond
to such provocation is<BR>> also to not necessarily dignify every such
provocation with a response.<BR>><BR>> Abhik Samanta has written in his
private capacity to Vedavati, and not<BR>> on the list. So his post (no
matter how objectionable and misogynist its<BR>> content may be, which I
think it is, even though I can understand his<BR>> outrage at Vedavati's
clear act of hate speech) is not technically a<BR>> breach of list
etiquette.<BR>><BR>> Vedavati's reply to Abhik which is addressed both to
Abhik and to the<BR>> list is however a clear case of someone dragging what
is essentially a<BR>> private exchange between two people on to the public
space of the list.<BR>> Doing so,without asking for the permission of the
concerned persons (and<BR>> there is no indication that she has asked Abhik)
is a clear breach of<BR>> list eitquette.<BR>><BR>> As a list member, I
would advise all other list members (including<BR>> Vedavati, and Abhik) to
try and refrain from blowing this issue out of<BR>> proportion. I personally
find the sentiments that Vedavati is asking us<BR>> to consider (in the blog
whose url she has forwarded) pathetic.<BR>><BR>> I personally think that
the real power of Hindutva-vadis lies in their<BR>> ability to hog public
attention. Just ignore what is said by<BR>> Hindutva-vaids , be amused, at
best by the sad level of the arguments<BR>> and the rhetoric that they put
forward, and see how powerful your<BR>> unwillingness to pay attention to
their agenda can be.<BR>><BR>> I hope this puts an end to what might
become an otherwise unpleasant<BR>> distraction on this busy
list.<BR>><BR>> regards,<BR>><BR>>
Shuddha<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> Vedavati Jogi wrote:<BR>>> this
shows your level mr. abhik!<BR>>><BR>>> when you people curse
hindutv forces especially rss & family, we should<BR>>>
not<BR>>> react<BR>>> but when we talk about muslim terrorism you
can't tolerate moreover you<BR>>> use<BR>>> such a dirty language
...is it democracy? is it secularism?is it<BR>>>
liberalism?<BR>>><BR>>>
vedavati<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>From: "Abhik Samanta" <<BR><A
href="mailto:abhikauliya@googlemail.com">abhikauliya@googlemail.com</A>></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>>>To: vedavati <<BR><A
href="mailto:vrjogi@hotmail.com">vrjogi@hotmail.com</A>></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV> </DEFANGED_DIV>
<DEFANGED_DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>>>Subject: Re: [Reader-list] vedavati
thought you would like "wrap the body<BR>>>>of muslim terrorist with
pig skin"<BR>>>>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:01:43
+0530<BR>>>><BR>>>>depraved and poor deprived girl
wats the use of wasting time thinkin<BR>>>>shit<BR>>>>dont u
have anyone to fuck<BR></FONT></DEFANGED_DIV></BODY></HTML>