[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
In article <4b249r$8vu@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) wrote
>>As a retribution towards my stand on this issue, the proponents of SRV
>>have now sought to re-create the Soc.Religion.Hindu.
Without going into a silly personal war, I would like to state that the
above is a gross misrepresentation. Sri Shah was himself asked to be a
moderator of the reorganized groups, and this is surely not a retributive
measure. Also, the RFD itself does not mention retribution or Sri Shah,
and it is unclear how he arrived at the conclusion that such was intended.
>>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.
There is no such control over "the" newsgroup as claimed, because:
1> There are going to be three newsgroups after the reorg, rather than
just one; of these, one will be unmoderated.
2> None of the proponents is a moderator, and the moderators are people
known to be fair.
3> The "very vocal" reasoning for not including 'Hindu' in the name of the
SRV newsgroup was never rebutted logically, except to repeat, ad nauseum,
the position that it should be there.
>>The RFD in its present form definitely seems politically motivated, rahter
>>than being motivated by good intentions.
It is unfortunate that such low-down falsehoods are sought to be employed
against the reorganization proposal. No proponent has mentioned politics
in connection with the effort, and it is a fact that the proponents
themselves carry different political convictions.
>Certainly, if Vaishnavism is some thing apart from Hinduism, why are these
>people interested in controlling the news-group? Is it because sections of srh
>(like me) are against the semi-truths and selective-interpretations offered by
>the Vaishnavites (of this news-group)? If these people start controlling the
>news-group, I strongly suspect that some of my posts accepted by the
>present moderator (Ajay Shah) wouldn't be accepted for the sole reason that I
>am against the interpretations of these folks. One begins to suspect that these
>people are trying to dismantle the news-group so that no opinions contrary to
>their own are heard on the net. Some people call this the Ostrich syndrome.
I must remark, sir, that the above does not look like the reasoned
response of a serious thinker, and looks more like the slanderous, ad
hominem reply of someone who cannot think clearly. If the proponents do
not wish voices other than their own to be heard, to what purpose do they
propose an unmoderated newsgroup?
>One also wonders how Vaishnavism is not a part of Hinduism. Since I am ignorant
>of the reasons for this profound (!!) idea, maybe the readers of srh can
>enlighten me.
A better idea would be to look up the RFD discussions on
soc.religion.vaishnava, on the DejaNews archive of UseNet postings, at
http://www.dejanews.com
>Now for a multiple choice question. Though, the Vaishnavites use
>only the Hindu scriptures (like the Vedas, Puranas etc) how is Vaishnavism not
>a part of Hinduism? This is because
>
>a) The Bible says Lord Narayana is supreme b) The Koran says so c) The Bahaists
>support them d) The Buddha says so e) Barney the dinosaur says so f) They stea-
>dfastly refuse to accept any verse contrary to their preconceived notions, in
>the Vedas or the puranas.
Again, sir, the above is an ad hominem response. If you wish to point out
something you consider is a flaw in the Vaishnava approach to something,
it is surely not necessary to do so discourteously.
>Shri Bhatnagar had it 100.1% correct when he called this proposal childish
>behavior.
Shri Bhatnagar's posting has been responded to on news.groups (where this
discussion is supposed to be). Anyone interested may please refer to it there.
>>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.
Yes, indeed. Only depends what "this" is.
>>In the following post, I will give a point-by-point explanation for my
>>opposition to RFD for Soc.Religion.Hindu reorganization
Still awaited.
>Hopefully this awfully silly, politically motivated proposal will not go
>through.
If you can critique the RFD and demonstrate where exactly it is silly, it
would help everyone share your opinion.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
P.S. A request to Sri Ajay Shah: please make sure to crosspost all
postings about the reorg that are sent to you, to news.groups also -- I
believe the condition David Lawrence laid down for allowing the RFD
discussion on soc.religion.hindu, was that all the discussion that
appeared here also appear on news.groups, where all such discussions are
supposed to be. However, I did not see Sri Ramakrishnan's posting on
news.groups, and would like to request that this oversight not be
repeated. Thank you.
>Ramakrishnan
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
