[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD For Soc.Religion.Hindu Reorganization
In article <4at1at$ei9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> As a retribution towards my stand on this issue, the proponents of SRV
|> have now sought to re-create the Soc.Religion.Hindu.
Please note that this claim is incorrect. If this were "retribution",
could you please explain why you were asked to be one of the moderators
of the reorganized groups? It seems to me that if we were out to "get you",
then we wouldn't have offered you the opportunity to be a moderator.
Also, I would like to point out that you had a great deal of advance
notice with regard to the RFD being proposed, and you seem to have
not mentioned this. If there was any attempt to be "sinister", why
would we have done this?
Please, Ajay, keep some balance in this discussion.
|> 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.
The proposed moderators are all men of integrity, from what I have
seen, and to accuse them of something like this is beyond the bounds
of reason. If you have some point to make, please do so. However, I
would like to state once again that you were asked to be a moderator,
and you declined.
|> If they were indeed seeking an improvement of Hindu related newsgroups
[...]
I consider the RFD not only an expansion of SRH, but also an improvement.
Not only are there more groups and more moderators, but there is are
clear statements of what belongs and does not belong in the groups. I
personally feel that the SRH reorg document is extremely "professional",
for lack of a better term, and I would hope that you would focus your
opposition, if any, on the RFD itself.
|> The RFD in its present form definitely seems politically motivated, rahter
|> than being motivated by good intentions.
If anyone has any comments about the RFD itself, I welcome them to
come forward. However, I don't see what statements like the above
accomplish. I will gladly state to you, to the readers of SRH, and
in front of any Deity that I feel that the RFD will be positive for
SRH. Note the last part - I don't take vows in front of God lightly.
|> 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
Please do, but I wish that you had omitted much of the "my opponents
are evil and out to get me" dialogue above. It really is unjustified,
and given that there are 9 people involved with this RFD, it is hard
to believe that all of them are somehow "out to get you".
-Vivek
(submitted around Fri Dec 15 19:03:39 CST 1995)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
References:
