Click here for an easy and free way to help protect endangered habitat at The Rainforest Site! Non-profit ad by Voyager
VoyForums
GIVE FREE FOOD
www.TheHungerSite.com
-> Click Here <-
SAVE THE RAINFORESTS
www.TheRainforestSite.com
-> Click Here <-
Non-profit ad served by VoyForums...

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, [8], 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 04:04:50 01/04/03 Sat
Author: ketch-19Nov02
Subject: Re: From the Ananda-Walrus on SRF's Lawsuit
In reply to: Anonymous-19Nov02 's message, "Re: From the Ananda-Walrus on SRF's Lawsuit" on 04:02:41 01/04/03 Sat

The issue of anonymity is only of relevance where it has a bearing on the credibility of the argument raised, i.e. where the poster claims to be an eyewitness, or to write from personal experience.

For example, if I wish to argue that a large unknown animal inhabits Loch Ness, I can make a credible argument by referring to the available photographic evidence, and citing many documented eyewitness accounts. I might also post links to internet sites where such evidence is presented. Under such circumstances it does not matter who I am since anyone reading the post can form an opinion on the basis of the strength of the evidence presented and arguments used.

On the other hand, if I were to claim that i had seen the animal at close quaters, and that it had invited me into it's lair for cream tea and haggis, then my credibility as a witness is clearly an issue. If it were shown that in fact I was an inmate at an Albanian psychiatric institution, and could not possibly have visited Scotland, then the credibility of my account is substantially reduced.

The evidence presented at this board is generally of the former type, wheras the claims made at Ananda-Walrus tend to be made on the basis of the poster's alleged status as former SRF monastics. The issue of the posters identities is of much greater importance in such posts.

"Then where is your evidence that Ananda is involved with the SRF Walrus message board? Yes, I know you backtracked and said "Actually if you were to check you would find that neither myself nor Thomas Mark ever claimed that it was run by Ananda, simply that there are grounds for suspicion...." But then, where are your grounds for suspicion?"

I have not backtracked on anything, and I stand by every word I wrote.

As for reasons to be suspicious of that board, I have already given some, but to clarify:

The views expressed there are largely consistent with Ananda's objectives. Posts critical of JD Walters are deleted. The main page of the Ananda-Walrus site includes a prominent link to YoganandaRediscovered - an anti-SRF hate site produced by Ananda. One Ananda member indicated his knowledge of the site prior to it's formation. Ananda members (such as you) are promoting that site on other message boards such as this one.

So does that mean that court documents of a sexual harassment lawsuit against SRF are posted here, you will allow them? And when the court transcripts of the recent SRF/Ananda trial are public, you will allow them here, without deleting?


Anyone who cares to read through the posts here will see that I have not deleted posts simply because they are critical of SRF. In fact you have made many such posts yourself which have not been deleted. So the answer is yes, provided that such posts are made in a responsible manner, e.g. provided short quotations are not made out of context etc.

As for your other questions, you ask "Where is your evidence?" three times. Firstly you seem to suggest that you are not a member of Ananda. My evidence, however is that you have been making pro-Ananda posts on this board for a long time, and have consistently argued in favour of JD Walters, a proven fraud and sex abuser. Perhaps you would now like to claim you are not an Ananda punter. Please tell us all then. Would you like to claim you are actually a former SRF monastic - your claim would probably be about as credible as the claims of some posters at Ananda-Walrus.

The other two matters have both been dealt with above. Specifically, I have not stated that Ananda-Walrus is definitely run by Ananda members/supporters, simply that there are grounds for suspicion. Secondly the fact that former monastics trying to rebuild their lives would be unlikely to attend the trial and the fact that you (as an Ananda apologist) copy those posts here.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2012 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.