Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 This was my reply when I read the initial post... -- In advaitin, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran> wrote: > Namaste Members, > > First, I want to thank Sri Sandeep Chatterjee for this > excellent essay with the format of Questions & > Answers. His presentation is quite foreful and > enjoyable and he is quite thorough in his own way. His > style of presentation resembles a glimpse of > Nisargatta Maharaj and other pure thinkers. I am very > happy to forward this essay to you all. > Umm, excuse, me but there's no way Sandeep is the author of this....it's not his writing style and the English is way better than Sandeep's is...in fact, it sound suspiciously familiar to something I read in Chuck Hillig... If this is a glimpse of anything, it seems more likely it's just simple plagiarism....but I'll withhold judgment... And I'll check into it... (Time spent checking it out in google.com...) Yep, it's Hillig. In fact, it appears to be virtually a word-for-word quote he lifted from Hillig's writings... I see now that there's a follow-up post saying that, oh, by the way, even though Sandeep signed the original thing with his name, and even though the posting says *by* Sandeep, it's *really* comes from a supposed dialog "with" someone --- in Sandeep's own inimitable stye: ".. with an entity named Chuck Hillig, not Sandeep." First, let's note that Sandeep doesn't simply admit "I copied this from a web page of Chuck Hillig's and thought you might all enjoy it." Instead, Sandeep claims this is a dialog "with" Chuck Hilig, (note: not a dialog "of" (that is, written by) Chuck Hillig's)......this would seem to imply that Sandeep himself had this as a dialog with Hillig...and since Sandeep has signed the piece, it would also appear that we are to believe that Hillig is asking the questions, and Sandeep is giving these profound answers that give us glimpses of great past sages....(hmmmmm, that's quite a claim.....having read (and respecting) Hillig, who is a well-known author on Eastern philosophy, I nonetheless think he would be appalled at such an overblown claim....read Hillig for yourself, and see what you think...) In any event, and with no rancor, may I simply raise the the possibility that Sandeep didn't have this dialog with anyone, let alone Hillig, who *is* the author....it would instead instead *appear* to something he lifted off the web and then posted as his own. (And then afraid he might be found out, giving this disenguous stuff about this being a dialog he had "with" Hillig?) Of course, this all could just be an accidental "slip up," though I think Sandeep's own words make that unlikely, or maybe in Sandeep's culture, wholesale borrowing of an author's text and giving it as your own is no big deal...but I doubt that too...what we can say is that both posts are unfair to Hillig, unfair and misleading to the group, and it certainly was very unkind and unfair to the individual who in good faith introduced the post into the group thinking it was Sandeep's own thoughts and words.. One thing I had really appreciated in this group is the scrupulous attribution that takes place here. It shows great respect for the original authors and for the text itself. I think it's a standard that should be maintained. Steve ___ Steven L. Fair ----------------- "The worst of madmen is a saint run mad." Alexander Pope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > One thing I had really appreciated in this group is the scrupulous > attribution that takes place here. You've had a good rant I see. You seemed to have missed the fact that the moderator did not disclose the fact that the initial post was addressed to an individual, and was never intended to be posted here on this list. You miss that Sandeep made it quite clear he would not submit posts thru a moderator. You miss also that discussion was never signed by Sandeep, nor claimed to be Sandeep's. Sandeep said, "Look at this". When he saw that the post was submitted for public view without his intent, and saw that it was presented as Sandeep's, he cleared up the confusion. Are there any more slimy conclusions this list wants to draw, or has this been enough for one day? Ed PS: I noticed the moderator only sent a portion of Sandeep's second post to the list. I wonder what the rest of it said? Scrupulous, indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Namaste Sri Ed: Please get all the facts straight before making allegations with respect to the forwarded article, "The Deepest Essence of Advaita by Sandeep" to the list. First, the Chief Moderator has published all the correspondence between him and Sri Sandeep to the public preview. He suggested that if Sandeep wants to send any article to the list, he should submit to me. Neither I nor the chief moderator requested Sri Sandeep to send articles for our own reading! When he sent the article with the title, "The Deepest Essence of Advaita" to me and the Chief Moderator, it is quite obvious that it is meant to be for the list. In his message, Sandeep stated : "Hi Ram, Have a look." This is the only statement. His message certainly didn't say that this article is for my own reading and should not be posted to the list! I just forwarded the his email direct to the list and made sure that everyone knows that the article is from Sandeep and not from me. I have written my honest impression about the article to the list while forwarding the article. I never even thought that the article was originally written by Chuck. Few minutes after the article was posted, I received another email from Sri Sandeep stating that he didn't send it to me for posting. This is after the fact. I am not the Brahman to know what was in Sri Sandeep's mind. The second message that you are referring to contain two Emails: the first one related to the correction regarding the authorship and the second one is a private email addressed to me. Is there any reason why I should forward private correspondence between me and a member to the list? Both the parties (me and the member should agree to release that private email.) I do not want to release it and it is my privilege. Finally, I just want to express my sincere apology to the list members for being responsible for all the negative mails that keep coming. Let me also take this opportunity to express my sincere apology to Sri Ed and Sri Sandeep if I hurt their feelings unknowingly. I also have a final request to all the members. If you are angry, you can express it by sending email directly to my address. Please don't send them to all the all innocent bystanders. warmest regards, Ram Chandran advaitin, ed-peterson@u... wrote: > > One thing I had really appreciated in this group is the scrupulous > > attribution that takes place here. > > > > You've had a good rant I see. > > You seemed to have missed the fact that > the moderator did not disclose the fact that > the initial post was addressed to an individual, > and was never intended to be posted here > on this list. > > You miss that Sandeep made it quite clear > he would not submit posts thru a moderator. > > You miss also that discussion was never > signed by Sandeep, nor claimed to be Sandeep's. > > Sandeep said, "Look at this". > > When he saw that the post was submitted > for public view without his intent, and > saw that it was presented as Sandeep's, > he cleared up the confusion. > > Are there any more slimy conclusions this list > wants to draw, or has this been enough > for one day? > > Ed > > > PS: > I noticed the moderator only sent a portion > of Sandeep's second post to the list. I wonder > what the rest of it said? > > Scrupulous, indeed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > Namaste Sri Ed: Hello Ram: > > Please get all the facts straight before making allegations with > respect to the forwarded article, "The Deepest Essence of Advaita by > Sandeep" to the list. Yes. Let's! > > First, the Chief Moderator has published all the correspondence > between him and Sri Sandeep to the public preview. He suggested that > if Sandeep wants to send any article to the list, he should submit to > me. Neither I nor the chief moderator requested Sri Sandeep to send > articles for our own reading! Is this your way of saying you made an honest mistake by forwarding private email to the list? > > When he sent the article with the title, "The Deepest Essence of > Advaita" to me and the Chief Moderator, it is quite obvious that it > is meant to be for the list. It is only obvious you have made that assumption. > In his message, Sandeep stated : "Hi > Ram, Have a look." This is the only statement. Yes. I made that very point earlier. > His message certainly > didn't say that this article is for my own reading and should not be > posted to the list! Forgive me, but when a person is put on moderated status, aren't posts automatically sent to the moderator, rather to the list? I believe you will find should you investigate that is clearly how the system works: A r being moderated submits a posting like he would if he weren't being moderated. The post, however, is first deflected to a moderator for approval, and once approved, is then forwarded manually onto the list. If you weren't aware of the procedure it might explain why you jumped to the wrong conclusion. > > I just forwarded the his email direct to the list and made sure that > everyone knows that the article is from Sandeep and not from me. > > I have written my honest impression about the article to the list > while forwarding the article. I never even thought that the article > was originally written by Chuck. Few minutes after the article was > posted, I received another email from Sri Sandeep stating that he > didn't send it to me for posting. This is after the fact. I am not > the Brahman to know what was in Sri Sandeep's mind. > > The second message that you are referring to contain two Emails: the > first one related to the correction regarding the authorship and the > second one is a private email addressed to me. Is there any reason why > I should forward private correspondence between me and a member to the > list? Exactly my point! What you're saying is that you were certain that the information in the second email was not (would not be!) for public view. But you were certain that the email sent to the very same address only minutes earlier WAS for public view? You must be a very good mind reader, Ram? I only asked for the rest of the contents of that second letter because I suspect Sandeep may have told you himself that his letter was not intended for public view. That might have made a difference with our friend Steve. (Maybe not) Both the parties (me and the member should agree to release that > private email.) I do not want to release it and it is my privilege. This tells us quite a lot. > > Finally, I just want to express my sincere apology to the list members > for being responsible for all the negative mails that keep coming. > Let me also take this opportunity to express my sincere apology to Sri > Ed and Sri Sandeep if I hurt their feelings unknowingly. I offer my sincere apologies that you and others keep thinking this is about mine or Sandeep's hurt feelings. It cuts much, much deeper, and is a great opportunity for all to take a good look - not at others, but our selves. > > I also have a final request to all the members. If you are angry, you > can express it by sending email directly to my address. Please don't > send them to all the all innocent bystanders. > > warmest regards, > > Ram Chandran peace, Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 Namaste Sri Ed: Please understand that Sri Sandeep's membership status is "This member can not post." This has been clearly stated in Sri Gummuluru's post to this list. Under this status, if Sri Sandeep sends any posting to the list, it will bounce! He is certainly not under 'moderated' status. The only way that he can post is by sending to me (authroized by the Chief Moderator) or to the chief moderator. Hence his email to me is not a private email unless he specifically states so! The second email was sent after the article was posted. The second email states that the article shouldn't have been posted. Ram Chandran advaitin, ed-peterson@u... wrote: > > > advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote: > > Namaste Sri Ed: > > Hello Ram: > > > > > > Please get all the facts straight before making allegations with > > respect to the forwarded article, "The Deepest Essence of Advaita > by > > Sandeep" to the list. > > > Yes. Let's! > > > > > > First, the Chief Moderator has published all the correspondence > > between him and Sri Sandeep to the public preview. He suggested > that > > if Sandeep wants to send any article to the list, he should submit > to > > me. Neither I nor the chief moderator requested Sri Sandeep to > send > > articles for our own reading! > > > Is this your way of saying you > made an honest mistake by forwarding > private email to the list? > > > > > > > > When he sent the article with the title, "The Deepest Essence of > > Advaita" to me and the Chief Moderator, it is quite obvious that > it > > is meant to be for the list. > > > It is only obvious you have made that assumption. > > > > > In his message, Sandeep stated : "Hi > > Ram, Have a look." This is the only statement. > > > > Yes. I made that very point earlier. > > > > > His message certainly > > didn't say that this article is for my own reading and should not > be > > posted to the list! > > > Forgive me, but when a person is put on > moderated status, aren't posts automatically > sent to the moderator, rather to the list? > > I believe you will find should you investigate > that is clearly how the system works: A > r being moderated submits a posting > like he would if he weren't being moderated. > The post, however, is first deflected to a moderator > for approval, and once approved, is then forwarded > manually onto the list. > > If you weren't aware of the procedure it might > explain why you jumped to the wrong conclusion. > > > > > > I just forwarded the his email direct to the list and made sure > that > > everyone knows that the article is from Sandeep and not from me. > > > > I have written my honest impression about the article to the list > > while forwarding the article. I never even thought that the > article > > was originally written by Chuck. Few minutes after the article was > > posted, I received another email from Sri Sandeep stating that he > > didn't send it to me for posting. This is after the fact. I am not > > the Brahman to know what was in Sri Sandeep's mind. > > > > > The second message that you are referring to contain two Emails: > the > > first one related to the correction regarding the authorship and > the > > second one is a private email addressed to me. Is there any reason > why > > I should forward private correspondence between me and a member to > the > > list? > > > Exactly my point! > > What you're saying is that you were > certain that the information in the > second email was not (would not be!) > for public view. > > But you were certain that the email > sent to the very same address only > minutes earlier WAS for public view? > > You must be a very good mind reader, Ram? > > I only asked for the rest of the contents > of that second letter because I suspect > Sandeep may have told you himself that his > letter was not intended for public view. > > That might have made a difference with > our friend Steve. (Maybe not) > > > > Both the parties (me and the member should agree to release that > > private email.) I do not want to release it and it is my privilege. > > > This tells us quite a lot. > > > > > > > Finally, I just want to express my sincere apology to the list > members > > for being responsible for all the negative mails that keep coming. > > Let me also take this opportunity to express my sincere apology to > Sri > > Ed and Sri Sandeep if I hurt their feelings unknowingly. > > > I offer my sincere apologies that you and others > keep thinking this is about mine or Sandeep's > hurt feelings. > > It cuts much, much deeper, and is a great opportunity > for all to take a good look - not at others, but our > selves. > > > > > > > I also have a final request to all the members. If you are angry, > you > > can express it by sending email directly to my address. Please > don't > > send them to all the all innocent bystanders. > > > > warmest regards, > > > > Ram Chandran > > > peace, > > Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2001 Report Share Posted March 28, 2001 > The second > email states that the article shouldn't have been posted. > > Ram Chandran Thank you, Ram, for that clarification. I'll follow your lead from here on out. namaste, Ed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.