let's be constructive

[Guest guest]

> ISKCON is not

> as small as someone may think. Any intelligent person would agree that

> before we spend hours in talking about replacing the entire body we should

> also simultaneously think who will be the next body. And so the natural

> question is "who will be they?" and that's what I asked. I still ask the

> same question because I, as a member of ISKCON would like to know who we

> are proposing to manage ISKCON if the GBC body resigns at all. I guess we

> are looking for better managers.

 

One may doubt in your sudden genuine interest in looking for the

better managers than the current GBCs just after you have placed

your inquiry for the names of the eventual replacing ones out of

curiosity only:

"just curiosity, can you give say 25 to 30 names who can replace

the present GBC body?"

 

Besides, you haven't really leave an impression of someone who is

actually dissatisfied with the present GBCs and is asking for their

resignation and replacement, did you?

 

 

 

So, duplicity and tricky "questions". You seem to have learned some

tricks from the rtviks that you are arguing with and against so

bitterly. Why don't you first acknowledge your position on the topic,

i.e. that you consider how the present GBCs have done a very poor

performance in preventing and solving the numerous accumulated

grave problems in the institution and that their resignation and

replacement (in whatever extent it might be) is a serious option

to be considered. Then only your questions like "who", "how"

and "when" will be perceived as straightforward and natural and

not as some trickery to fool out those with the opposing opinion.

 

 

>

> Mataji, let's not get into arguments. We had enough of it with rtvikvadis.

 

But what is it exactly that you don't want to "get into arguments"

with her over? Here it is what she stated when you came in with

your "just curiosity":

 

"We should look for qualified leaders and they are present in Iskcon."

 

So do you share the same opinion or do you not? If you do, then

indeed there is no question of getting into arguments. And if you

don't, then don't get into arguments and then ask her not to

get into arguments. Don't play some rtviktrick, indeed. It would

take a fool to start compiling such a list with the names here and

at this instance. So don't demand from anybody do it, in the name

of your curiosity only.

 

>

> so in short, you couldn't give even one name, right? that certainly was

> not expected! I think you got little paranoid while reading my question

> and prejudged my intention.

 

She told you quite straight that she would perceive it as a

humiliation to start making the list with the names of those she

holds her respects towards, for the sake of satisfying your curiosity

and challenge merely. Not that she couldn't give even one name!

Don't play some game of children and call it "let's be constructive"

or "mataji, let's not get into arguments".

 

 

 

- mnd