[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
-
Subject: Re: RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization
-
From: Shrisha.Rao@lambada.oit.unc.edu
-
Date: 21 Dec 1995 02:07:11 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 832 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Keywords: Vedanta
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
References: <818964254.20578@uunet.uu.net> <4b4mf4$otp@sundog.tiac.net>
Please note: Some discussion about this has appeared on
soc.religion.hindu, and if you are interested in knowing what is said
there, you may wish to follow that newsgroup as well, for the duration of
this RFD discussion. If you post any replies there, please do make sure to
post them to news.groups as well, for the good of all concerned. Thanks.
In article <4b4mf4$otp@sundog.tiac.net>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) wrote:
> shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao) wrote:
>
> >Newsgroups lines:
> >soc.religion.hindu.info (moderated) Information of interest to
Hindus. (Moderated)
> >soc.religion.hindu.moderated Moderated forum for Hindu-related
matters. (Moderated)
> >talk.religion.hindu About Hindus and Hinduism.
>
> Why move the unmoderated discussion to talk.religon.hindu?
> Is there a technical (Usenet tradition) reason against:
>
> soc.religion.hindu Unmoderated forum
> soc.religion.hindu.moderated Moderated forum
> soc.religion.hindu.info Moderated
Unfortunately, there is. When we first submitted the RFD, we had a
provision for *four* newsgroups, two of them unmoderated, as follows:
soc.religion.hindu.moderated (moderated)
soc.religion.hindu.info (moderated)
soc.religion.hindu.misc (unmoderated; renames existing SRH)
talk.politics.hindu (unmoderated)
The first query we got was from Russ Allbery of Group Advice, asking why
we needed two unmoderated groups that would probably both get crossposted
flames. We wanted them because we would have liked to have a newsgroup
exclusively devoted to political discussion, given that there is so much
of such around all over the place. Conversely, we also felt that not
having an unmoderated group for Hindu politics would make little sense,
given that there is enough traffic to justify it.
A few days later, David Lawrence aka Tale himself got back to us, saying
that the unmoderated soc.religion.hindu.misc was a mistake (my paraphrase;
he may have used a different word). He also said that there is a lot of
experience that shows that when two unmoderated groups are created as we
proposed to do, they invariably carry the same crossposted flames, and it
is thus unnecessary to have them both. I again explained the same
reasoning as before -- and clarified that we would like politics out of
the religion group -- but he was quite cogent, and it was clear that an
unmoderated soc.religion.* group would become a sticking point with many
news.groups regulars. Tale also said that there is only one unmoderated
soc.religion.* group, and it has, through age, achieved the status of a
one-time exception. Starting another now would open the Pandora's box
again, and this he was keen to avoid. Therefore, we dropped the originally
planned two unmoderated groups, and went in for talk.religion.hindu, which
was actually a renamed soc.religion.hindu.misc, with the charter relaxed to
allow political discussions there.
> Mr. Rao has already gone on the record as stating a reason against
> talk.*, and I quote:
>
> >People read hardly any talk.* groups, and having us out in talk.*
> >suited Ajay Shah very well indeed.
>
> http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/arv/00current_month/msg00160.html
I did tell Tale also, that some might think having the unmoderated group
in talk.* was not quite fair, as it would relegate that group to secondary
status. Tale was quite dismissive of this argument, and said if people
didn't know talk.* groups could be read, they should learn -- or words to
that effect.
> The problem of low readership in the talk.* groups would be addressed
> by the names I have proposed. The unmoderated forum would be
> conveniently located "next" to the moderated forum.
If you can convince enough people to accept this view, it can certainly be
thought of. However, as things stand, I believe the proposed split is most
likely to be widely accepted as meaningful.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> Arun Malik
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
