Brilliant

[GopalaswamyShridharan]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Mahabharat War started on November 22, 3067 BC. This comes out of astronomical evidence. And the astronomical juxtapositions are not arbitrary or those that could happen in any decade or such… but some of them have not happened since. They are THAT rare a phenomenon.

SivaramaSwami.com Krishna and Mahabharat: Historical reality

Thank You.

gopal.

 

[v.lalithakumar]

hats off to the the astonomical evidence provided.wish many more chronological prooves would putforth. thanks.v.lalithakumar

 

[kunjuppu]

swami,

please be careful and critical when you read info llike this.

the originator of this thread is banned, for various reasons.

the website that he referred, i would be skeptical.

do not believe all the claims in the web. if it was that true, it would have been news long ago. not a secret to go check out at an obscure website.

thanks.

 

[RVR]

swami,

please be careful and critical when you read info llike this.

the originator of this thread is banned, for various reasons.

the website that he referred, i would be skeptical.

do not believe all the claims in the web. if it was that true, it would have been news long ago. not a secret to go check out at an obscure website.

thanks.

Dear Sri Kunjuppu ji,

I am surprised to see Sri Gopalsamy Sridharan banned from this forum. If you can disclose the reasons publicly, please do it. If you cannot disclose in this forum for various reasons, please leave it

Please note that I am not questioning his suspension at all. It is the decision of the administrators and I am sure all of you would have taken a well considered thought before taking such a drastic decision.

All the best.

 

[pannvalan]

I also am curious to know the rationale behind such an extreme step.

 

[kunjuppu]

this was a while ago.

krs or praveen can assist me here.

banning is not an extreme step by itself. it is the natural end to a progression of warnings discussed in private messages, and sometimes publicly, in order to protect the normal, well intentioned, and innocent members.

we have found certain members take multiple identities and post inane or irrelevant remarks. when banned once, they come under another i.d. and do the same thing over again.

believe me, there are folks such as these, in many cases, use this forum as a cattle prod, to instigate some remark or the other, and disappear, or continuously inspite of warnings, abuse the forum.

as moderators, we discuss these types of abusers often. it is a toss up, as to whether we want to expose these abusers publicly.

in the tradition that has been followed so far, however, we are reluctant to give more details.

overall, i think, members should view moderation in their own context, and give us your feedbacks.

moderators, go under certain guidelines, which are openly published.

we are reluctant to publish all details re other members,for i believe, it does not do justice to the tasks of the moderators.

thank you.

 

[pannvalan]

I am happy and satisfied by your reply and could gauge what was really going on.
Though my intention is not to question the sagacity of the moderators, the element of surprise tempted folks like me to know the reasons.

I am thankful for the detailed explanation given by the moderators.

 

[RVR]

Thanks for your reply Kunjuppu ji.

All the best

 

[kunjuppu]

pann,

in many a case, we find that banning one user i.d., may not necessarily keep the user away.

there appears to be some magnetic attraction this forum has for some folks.

so they come back.

we have found, that each user, has a trademark way of penning their posts, and very soon we discover the new i.d.

moderators do not interfere with the new i.d., and unless provoked, do not 'out' the individual's old i.d.

variety of members is a key point to the success of this forum. the moderators, more than anyone else, are keenly aware of this.

we appreciate the general public for their understanding, and hopefully live up to the trust endowed on us.

thank you.

 

[pannvalan]

I agree; every serious or non-serious writer has his/her own distinctive signature in his/her writings. And a discerning person can easily pick out the similarities and match them for congruence. Alas, every thing then falls in place!

 

[sapthajihva]

It may also be that the individual who enters in a new id does not wish to hide anything!

Masking the similarities would not be such a difficult issue, if one applies a different pattern.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

It is not the writing pattern/style alone that permits us to identify prior members, with new monikers. We have today the technology to do this also.

Regards,
KRS

It may also be that the individual who enters in a new id does not wish to hide anything!

Masking the similarities would not be such a difficult issue, if one applies a different pattern.

 

[RVR]

Let us leave it as it is. Normally people get warning publicly before banned. But in this case it didn't happen. That is why I wanted to know if possible. However, I earnestly feel that it is not necessary to disclose reasons for banning.

All the best

 

[sapthajihva]

Dear Sri sapthajihva Ji,

It is not the writing pattern/style alone that permits us to identify prior members, with new monikers. We have today the technology to do this also.

Regards,
KRS

Yes sir, you are spot on, but perhaps, masking IP addresses is also possible, if one wishes to be so secretive!

Then again, there are other means like drafting the message and posting it from a different location. Not hard when the intent is intense.

 

[KRS]

Folks,

the purpose of this Forum is to encourage coomunication within our community. As is the case with many communities, we have the orthodox, conservative, liberal and ultra liberal within our community.

The only way to promote healthy discussions amongst us from all different patina of backgrounds is to make sure that we act in a civilized manner towards each other.

Those we have 'banned' did not follow this policy. Despite repeated warnings, they have insulted our members several times.

We have had private communications with them. But then when we allow them to come back, they can not but resist to follow their old habits.

While you can count such folks within a finger of your hand, they still try to post, thinking that they can outsmart you. We have even given ample choices for such a person to come out clean, but he/she persits in saying that he/she is correct. He/she did not grab an opportunity to apologize and mend his/her ways. So, such a person is forever banned.

But then there are folks who publicly advertise that they would not participate and then later on come back. We do not divulge the identity of such folks, because they have a reason to take on a different moniker. We respect their intentions to do so, because they do not hurt the interests of the Forum.

So, it goes. I thought this would open a window on how we, the Admins operate.

Regards,
KRS

this was a while ago.

krs or praveen can assist me here.

banning is not an extreme step by itself. it is the natural end to a progression of warnings discussed in private messages, and sometimes publicly, in order to protect the normal, well intentioned, and innocent members.

we have found certain members take multiple identities and post inane or irrelevant remarks. when banned once, they come under another i.d. and do the same thing over again.

believe me, there are folks such as these, in many cases, use this forum as a cattle prod, to instigate some remark or the other, and disappear, or continuously inspite of warnings, abuse the forum.

as moderators, we discuss these types of abusers often. it is a toss up, as to whether we want to expose these abusers publicly.

in the tradition that has been followed so far, however, we are reluctant to give more details.

overall, i think, members should view moderation in their own context, and give us your feedbacks.

moderators, go under certain guidelines, which are openly published.

we are reluctant to publish all details re other members,for i believe, it does not do justice to the tasks of the moderators.

thank you.

 

[sapthajihva]

But then there are folks who publicly advertise that they would not participate and then later on come back. We do not divulge the identity of such folks, because they have a reason to take on a different moniker. We respect their intentions to do so, because they do not hurt the interests of the Forum.

So, it goes. I thought this would open a window on how we, the Admins operate.

Regards,
KRS

Shri KRS, that was quite an explanation!

On the highlighted lines - introspection is a good tool to retrace one's words!!

 

[happyhindu]

Saptajihva,

Not sure if introspection can apply to one side of the party alone.

Perhaps it may help you introspect as well.

 

[sapthajihva]

happyhindu, am not sure as to how you inferred that I meant introspection on one side alone (from my previous post)!!!

I think Shri KRS is quite capable of responding to my post, if he chooses to. Thank you.

 

[happyhindu]

Sapthajihva,

happyhindu, am not sure as to how you inferred that I meant introspection on one side alone (from my previous post)!!!

did i say that i have inferred so?

I think Shri KRS is quite capable of responding to my post, if he chooses to. Thank you.

?? I do not think i mentioned about Shri KRSji in my post to you above at all.

 

[sapthajihva]

sapthajihva,

happyhindu, am not sure as to how you inferred that i meant introspection on one side alone (from my previous post)!!!

did i say that i have inferred so?

i think shri krs is quite capable of responding to my post, if he chooses to. Thank you.

?? I do not think i mentioned about shri krsji in my post to you above at all.

ok??