[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
RFD: soc.religion.hindu-reorganization: Questions
My quotes are from the RFD
>It is beyond question that there exists a very high level of interest
>in the UseNet community in having one or more newsgroups devoted to
>the discussion of Hinduism in all its aspects.
I don't think so. There is no need for more than one group.
>There exists at present a moderated newsgroup soc.religion.hindu,
>which unfortunately has several shortcomings in its existing
>setup. These have recently been apparent, and this proposal seeks to
>fill in a number of such oversights in SRH's construction, by making:
>
>i> - provisions for multiple moderators to ensure quick response and
> fairness;
Usually, the posts come within 2 days, unless the moderator requires some
changes to be made. So I don't see huge delays now, atleast on a regular basis.
If Mr Shah has been unfair, how about voicing your opinions on it openly?
>ii> - provisions for replacement of moderators;
>iii> - clear definitions of moderation guidelines;
These already exist. Look up
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
>iv> - provisions for handling disputes between an author and a
> moderator;
These too already exist.
>v> - clarifications regarding what constitutes unacceptable behavior
> by a moderator.
Do you have any complaints about the behavior of Mr Shah?
If multiple moderators is the issue, then it can be discussed. The rest of the
stuff is totally un-necessary.
>There is also some interest in the 'Net user community for expanding the
>SRH.* hierarchy to include an unmoderated newsgroup talk.* group, and also
>another newsgroup that will just be for informational postings only. These
>additions will help provide suitable avenues for all types of
>Hindu-related discussions, and the presence of multiple moderators will
>ensure that submissions move faster, and that there is always a check to
>prevent any one moderator from having an undue influence.
As I said, only the multiple moderator issue has even some merit. In any case
as I said before, no one seems to have any complaints against Mr. Shah.
>Also, in spite of the existing soc.religion.hindu newsgroup having a
>large audience, it has a relatively low volume of postings. This may
>be attributed to the long delays that are usual to that newsgroup,
>which tend to prevent meaningful discussion. It is certain that faster
>moderation and the addition of more specific groups will remove the
>artificial encumbrances that now restrict the volume of postings on
>the existing newsgroup, or drive it into other newsgroups like
>soc.culture.indian. By having dedicated unmoderated groups to discuss
>some of the topics that now clutter the soc.culture.indian.*
>hierarchy, it is expected that groups in that hierarchy will be made
>less noisy as well.
No. By doing this you'll get all sci postings on the new one as well and it'll
degenerate as fast sci. A newsgroup, just being moderated keeps out most
irrelevant posts.
The following charter is totally un-necessary.
>1> completely irrelevant postings, and off-topic responses;
>2> postings with ad hominem attacks;
What are considered "ad hominem attacks"? This is very important. See the end
of my post as to why this is so.
The rest of the stuff 3> to N> is already being taken care of.
[rest of the usual RFD stuff deleted]
>Moderator: Srinivas Kandala <srini@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>
>Moderator: Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu>
>Moderator: Srini Pichumani <srini@eecs.umich.edu>
>Moderator: Raghu Seshadri <seshadri@cup.hp.com>
>
>END MODERATOR INFO.
>
>MODERATOR INFO: soc.religion.hindu.moderated
>
>Moderator: Srinivas Kandala <srini@inrs-telecom.uquebec.ca>
>Moderator: Anshuman Pandey <apandey@u.washington.edu>
>Moderator: Srini Pichumani <srini@eecs.umich.edu>
>Moderator: Raghu Seshadri <seshadri@cup.hp.com>
>
>END MODERATOR INFO.
I checked up both the srh and alt.hindu archives. The number of posts by each
of the moderators
proposed new moderator # of posts made on srh or alt.hindu
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Srinivas Kandala zero (or one), I'm not sure
Anshuman Pandey two
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/
alt_hindu/1995_Jul_1/msg00061.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/
alt_hindu/1995_Jul_1/msg00060.html
Srini Pichumani zero
Raghu Seshadri six
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1995_Jul_2/msg00090.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1995_Jul_1/msg00039.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1995_Jun_1/msg00110.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1995_Jun_1/msg00109.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1995_Feb_2/msg00120.html
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/alt_
hindu/1994/msg00456.html
The proposers of the RFD
>Mani Varadarajan <mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com>
>Henry Groover <HGroover@Qualitas.com>
>Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@ece.rice.edu>
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
>Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.cs.du.edu>
Note that all these people are in srv. Their claim is that Vaishnavism is not
a part of Hinduism (whatever the reasons may be, I don't care). So if they are
offered a choice of what religion they belong to , they'll choose V'sm instead
of H'sm (assume that you have to make only one choice). Mr Vivek Pai has
expressed anti-shaivite sentiments on at least one ocassion (through the
sayings of Bhrigu). Mr Groover's contribution to srh (rather a.h) has been
mainly as a spokesman of ISKCON. All others are avowed Vaishnavites. So why
the sudden interest in splitting the srh newsgroup?
Also note that moderators 1 and 4 have made zilch contribution to srh. If I am
mistaken please point out your articles on the archives. Now, these people have
been chosen by the srv cabal. What are the qualifications of these people.
Have they worked for ah and srh like Mr Shah? Pl. don't state the fact that
you offered Mr Shah a position. He disagrees anyway with the split, and it is
very easy to figure out you would've expected the same.
Now for some questions to the selected moderators
1. Are you Vaishnavites?
2. Do you feel Vaishnavism is superior to Hinduism?
3. Why do you think you are qualified to moderate srh?
4. Do you read srv?
5. Have you posted on it, and how many articles?
6. Do you read srh regularly?
7. Which deities other than Vishnu, his avatars, consorts etc do you worship?
8. Have you ever worshiped any one else? Who?
Now readers of srh. I guess there is a small probability that these people are
sincere, but it's highly improbable, given the present scenario.
Note that virtually anything could be considered "attacks" and they'll have to
be posted to the un-moderated ng, which is bound to degenerate quite fast,
which is what these people want (they consider themselves Vaishnavites and not
hindus anyway)
Ramakrishnan.
