I send them an article and they got it back to me. First, I thought it was because of grammar problems, as english is not my mother language. After a couple emails back and forth I understood it was just pure censorship on concepts that they are not in agreement with or just do not plain understand. So much for free press.
Below is the full email exchange. In case you want to dive in it, it shows pretty interesting attitudes and philosophical positions from our friends at SS. Personally, after this, I do not trust them anymore than I trust any institution/camp sycophant.
email exchange begins >>>
“Dear Rocana Prabhu,
I though it was a grammar problem.
I do not understand your editing anxieties in my article.
If you do have heavy doubts about my writting, take the opportunity and write another one to clarify. This is preaching my friend, taking the opportunity to turn the wrong into right.
Does every article that go on your site to be 100% spotless shastric? Is it anyway? Are your writtings free of inebrieties? Is your site a compilation of sutras or a venue for istagoshti and that includes wrong or semi wrong approaches? At what point you decide it’s not publiseable?
Funny that this conversation proves my point in the article. You are trying to asses on the absolute platform and making a personal misplaced decission (not publish).
I only place a restriction in my sites regarding to vaishnava etiquette and web etiquette. Looks like you want to control the content too much. Are you becoming a mini-dandavats? Let people judge by themselves, they are not children, and you are not their parent.
You want to change my words to suit your understanding.
The site is yours. Write it yourself, with your name and be happy.
I do have many more things apart from writting my views, and perhaps this is an indication that I should stop right here. Thank you for all your help and time.
with respect and believe me, no sour grapes 
at your service,
www.pasandoporlavida.com
El 30/11/2010, a las 07:14, sun@harekrsna.com escribió:
> Dear Jagannatha Mishra das,
>
> Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
>
> Following is the latest version of your article, with a note at the point
> where we stopped editing. Your revised paragraphs are integrated in the
> copy below. Our comments are prefaced with “COMMENT:” Hopefully you’ll
> understand our concerns, and be willing to do some more writing to clarify
> — that, or give us a good argument! LOL
>
> Hoping this finds you well,
>
> Ys,
> Rocana dasa
>
>
> In response to Mahavidya’s Prabhu href=”http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/11-10/editorials6793.htm”
> target=”_blank”>further considerations, I see a recurring
> problem. There are two ways to address an issue — one is from the
> absolute perspective of God and His pure devotee, and the other is from
> one’s personal limited perception.
>
> When a limited person makes absolute remarks there is a problem: those
> words, although intrinsically true, are not being adjusted to time and
> circumstance because the lack of realization, vijnana, so they render
> inapplicable or cause suffering and self-deception. A clear example is the
> pushing we received to go on sankirtan in the 80´s, leaving sometimes many
> “casualties” unnecesarily, or children unattended, etc. The principle was
> true, the application was wrong, wrong.
>
> COMMENT: You indicate here that wrong application of Absolute Truth has
> something to do with adjustments according to time, place and
> circumstance, but that’s not necessarily so. It could be – but it could
> also simply be misapplication.
>
> Please, apply these considerations to all your questions here. Apply to us
> criticizing/fighting other maths, etc., etc.
>
> COMMENT: You give no details to help us understand this. What
> “criticizing/fighting other maths” are you referring to, specifically?
> This is too broad brush for our tastes, in that it suggests, due to the
> lack of specificity, that ANY criticizing other maths is not good. But
> that’s not necessarily so. So more explanation is needed here.
>
> In relation to my statement, ‘can you be a guru?’, please note I am
> specifically addressing ISKCON gurus, that are trying to parade as next in
> line in the disciplic succession whilst they are at the most on the
> madhyama adhikari stage. They should clearly state they are madhyama
> adhikari.
>
> Even if the guru is a pure devotee, there is no harm in him staying humble
> and stating the above. Don’t you think? Otherwise we enter into the
> dynamic of keeping the dialog in a duplicitous way, letting disciples
> “figure out” that you are pure devotee at the same level of the sampradaya
> acarya. ” Of course this applies inside ISKCON and helps keep things in
> proper place.
>
> COMMENT: The above paragraph just doesn’t make sense to us. If a guru is
> a pure devotee, there is no QUESTION of him being humble… it’s not that he
> chooses to stay humble… he simply IS humble (which you say below). But as
> stated here, you indicate it’s somehow a choice the pure devotee makes, to
> be humble rather than not be humble. It would have nothing to do with the
> guru being duplicitous. You also don’t address the reality that
> Prabhupada said a guru should be uttama before serving as a diksa. You
> refer to ISKCON madhyam’s, but without referencing that obvious conflict
> with Prabhupada’s statement.
>
> [We stopped editing here]
>
> Letting them “figure out” that you are next in line in disciplic
> succession when you know very well you are not on that category. Heck,
> even if one IS in that category, he will be naturally humble.
>
> If you look carefully, I did not say that one should not speak out,
> but the time involved on it has to be very well balanced against
> positive devotional service, so that we do not become
> “lazy-unintelligent” characters. Probably the ratio should be 10:1.
> Ten Harinams and one article on the internet
>
> COMMENT: You’re suggesting that brahminical critical commentary, even if
> performed 100% of the time, is not devotional service? Where does sastra
> say that, or give a 10:1 formula? Where is it said that constant critical
> analysis is not “positive”? You need to differentiate between appropriate
> brahminical critical analysis and aparadhi fault-finding, rather than
> inferring that they’re all lumped together, no differentiation. These
> points apply to all the remainder of your article.
>
> Actually the main interest of Srila Prabhupada was to deliver
> conditioned souls through preaching, specially combating
> impersonalism, voidism and atheist science.
> Probably Srila Prabhupada would chastise us if we engage in
> criticizing publicly his Godbrothers, for example.
>
> I guess, after denouncing with a free spirit what we see wrong, better
> we focus on devotional service, because although denounce and whistle
> blowing are part of the healing, the real effective action is to work
> positively and show the world we do more than cheat politics or
> fighting.
>
> People are watching. And up to this moment we have been a shame this
> last 30 years.
>
> [end]
>
>
>
>
>> I cant understand what kind of problems you are having with my article.
>> Are they grammatical or philosophical?
>> Of course I am interested in publishing the article, its obvious
>> The question is why you are not.
>> Thank you for your service to the Vaishnava community.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> www.pasandoporlavida.com
>>
>> El 29/11/2010, a las 08:45, sun@harekrsna.com escribió:
>>
>>> Dear Jagannatha Mishra dasa,
>>>
>>> Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your revision paragraphs. I’m sorry to say, we still have a
>>> number of problems with this article. If you are intent on having it
>>> published please let us know that, and we’ll come back to you with a
>>> detailed summary of what we find problematic. If you are ambivalent
>>> about
>>> having it published let us know that, too, so we won’t take the time to
>>> get into a detailed commentary. We don’t mind doing so, if the article
>>> is
>>> important to you, so just say the word.
>>>
>>> Hoping this finds you well,
>>>
>>> your servant,
>>> Rocana dasa
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Maybe I carried sentences and modisms of my mother language, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> here is the revised text:
>>>>
>>>> “When a limited person makes absolute remarks there is a problem:
>>>> those words although intrinsically true are not being adjusted to time
>>>> and circumstance because the lack of realization, vijnana, so they
>>>> render inapplicable or cause suffering and self deception. A clear
>>>> example is the pushing we received to go on sankirtan in the 80´s
>>>> leaving sometimes many “casualties” innecesarily, or children
>>>> unattended, etc. The principle was true, the application was wrong,
>>>> wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In relation to my statement, can you be a guru? please note I am
>>>> specifically addressing ISKCON gurus, that are trying to parade as
>>>> next in line the disciplic succession whilst they are at the most in
>>>> madhyama adhikari stage. They should clearly state they are madhyama
>>>> adhikari.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the guru is a pure devotee, there is no harm him staying
>>>> humble and stating the above. Don´t you think? Otherwise we enter into
>>>> the dynamic of keeping the dialog in a duplicitous way, letting
>>>> disciples “figure out” that you are pure devotee at the same level of
>>>> the sampradaya acarya. ” Of course this applies inside ISKCON and
>>>> helps keep things in proper place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 8:39 AM, wrote:
>>>>> Dear Jagannatha Mishra dasa,
>>>>>
>>>>> Obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for your article. Unfortunately, we’re a bit confused about
>>>>> what you’re saying in some of the paragraphs. Perhaps you can do a
>>>>> bit
>>>>> of
>>>>> revising, and make your points more clear on the following:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When a limited person starts to make absolute remarks there is a
>>>>>> problem: those words although intrinsically true often cannot be
>>>>>> adjusted to time and circumstance, so they render inapplicable or if
>>>>>> you do apply them cause suffering and self deception.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you mean, words that are true cannot be adjusted to time and
>>>>> circumstance?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When referring to, can you be a guru? please note I am specifically
>>>>>> addressing ISKCON gurus, signaling the obvious, inside Srila
>>>>>> Prabhupada´s movement we are all tiny specs at His lotus feet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even if the devotee is a pure devotee, there is no harm him saying
>>>>>> so.
>>>>>> Don´t you think? Otherwise we enter into politics dynamic of keeping
>>>>>> the dialog in a duplicitous way with all sort of kind manners and
>>>>>> being politically correct, but cheating nonetheless. Somehow “I am a
>>>>>> realized soul” is the main theme.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Letting them “figure out” that you are next in line in disciplic
>>>>>> succession when you know very well you are not on that category.
>>>>>> Heck,
>>>>>> even if one IS in that category, he will be naturally humble.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We don’t really understand any of the above.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look forward to your clarification.
>>>>>
>>>>> ys,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rocana dasa
>>>>>
