[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD For Soc.Religion.Hindu Reorganization
-
Subject: Re: RFD For Soc.Religion.Hindu Reorganization
-
From: vijaypai@rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
-
Date: 17 Dec 1995 21:13:48 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 763 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>Saprem Namaskar!
Saprem Namaskar, Ajayji!
>First, a bit of self introduction, so as to avoid any confusion.
>I am the moderator of Soc.Religion.Hindu and have been the moderator
>of Alt.Hindu newsgroup for about 4 years.
Ok, thanks for telling me this; for a second I was thinking that
you were one of the other 11 Ajay Shah's who graduated with me
a few years ago.
>To which we were told, among many other things, that not all Vaishnavas
>are Hindus!
You still have not proven otherwise, and until you do, we must
continue to accept this premise.
>I also expressed
>desire that with the voting over, the Hindus on the net should unite and
>work towards better understanding of Hindu dharma on the net.
Yes, let us do so under the Hindu umbrella provided by the srh.*
reorg. This is the forum wanted for better understanding of Hindu
dharma on the Net and throughout the world.
>As a retribution towards my stand on this issue, the proponents of SRV
>have now sought to re-create the Soc.Religion.Hindu.
No way, Sri Ajay. There was dissatisfaction with SRH even before
you came out against SRV. For example, let me refer you to an
article "SRH: An Example of how not to Moderate" (or something
like that) by Sriman Shrisha Rao that critiqued your allowing of
choice personal attacks on the SRH newsgroup. If you would like,
I can repost those. Note that that came before your famous
NON-ENDORSEMENT message that was spammed across the Net.
>It is interesting to see that those who very vocally suggested why
>the word Hindu should not be included in Soc.Religion.Vaishnava newsgroup
>are now seeking to control the "Hindu" newsgroup.
Not at all; I have personally never denied being a Hindu; I just
said that not all Vaishnavas are Hindus. As a Hindu, I hope to
contribute my part to Hindu unity by participating in this
reorganization, which will spread the dharma like wildfire across
the Net!
>If they were indeed seeking an improvement of Hindu related newsgroups
>on the net, they would have sought a more unifying approach that was
>suggested, which was to create several newsgroups such as:
>soc.religion.hindu.shaivite
>soc.religion.hindu.upanishads
>etc.
On the contrary, this is more _divisive_. What we have proposed
is soc.religion.hindu.moderated, soc.religion.hindu.info, and
talk.religion.hindu ; there are no divisive references as to what
specific sects or texts are to be discussed in each one; rather,
they build a framework for a wide variety of Hindu discussion.
>The RFD in its present form definitely seems politically motivated, rahter
>than being motivated by good intentions.
You should show what lines are politically motivated rather than
just making a bare assertion like this.
>I hope that the readers of Soc.Religion.Hindu and those who are interested
>in the promotion of Hindu dharma through the net, will see through this.
>In the following post, I will give a point-by-point explanation for my
>opposition to RFD for Soc.Religion.Hindu reorganization
Looking forward to it.
>Regards,
>Ajay Shah
>ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
Yours,
Vijay
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
