[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH Reorg Bias: Where Wasn't RFD Posted?
In article <4ba3gr$ja6@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> Here is another factor you may wish to consider while you
|> make up your mind about the political and personal vendetta
|> that the proponents of SRH Re-org have decided to carry out.
There is a saying of which I'm sure you're aware - satyamev jayate.
If you are indeed telling the plain and obvious truth, then it's
quite safe to assume that an intelligent readership will be able
to figure these things out themselves. However, by starting off
your post with this force-fed accusation, you seem to be trying
to convince one person more than anyone else - yourself.
|> Isn't it strange to see alt.india.progressive, Indology mailing
|> list and Indo-European Mailing list included, but all the
|> India related soc.culture.india.* and soc.culture.* groups left
No - it isn't strange. One would hope that all Hindus read SRH,
although that perhaps may not be the case. So, leaving out the
soc.culture.* groups isn't evil. The mailing lists are common
for people who don't have the time to read a lot of newsgroups,
so sending it out on those is a way of finding new people who
might be interested in the topic, as well as reaching people who
only read news sporadically.
|> out? Neither was the RFD posted to The Hindu Digest nor Sanskrit Mailing
|> List!
I had personally been under the impression that the Sanksrit list
had disbanded, but I've been told that such is not the case. In
any event, the groups selected (especially SRH!) should have a high
enough readership that the vast majority of interested people will
hear about it.
|> When this was pointed out, it was claimed that there is a 200 line limit
|> in the newsgroup line etc., and that there was no ulterior motive in not
|> posting it to other Indian newsgroups.
Yes, that is correct, and your continued insinuations serve no purpose.
|> So once again, I checked up the charter of SRV. The RFD proposed by
|> and or supported by many of the same proponents was posted on the
|> following newsgroups:
|>
|> news.announce.newgroups,
|> news.groups,
|> alt.religion.vaisnava,
|> soc.culture.indian,
|> soc.culture.indian.marathi,
|> soc.culture.indian.kerala,
|> soc.culture.tamil,
|> alt.culture.karnataka,
|> soc.religion.hindu
|>
|> So while the proponents found it necessary to post the SRV RFD to many of the
|> SCI.* groups, they did not find it necessary to post this particular RFD to
|> the same newsgroups.
Indeed - you correctly point out that the SRV RFD was _not_ posted to
all of the SCI* groups. You'll note that in the SCI* groups listed,
there are major Vaisnava sampradayas, and there is often discussion
on Vaisnava topics.
|> Instead, they selected Alt.India.Progressive, where
|> many of the people are not very interested in religion etc. anyway!
SRH has always included a variety of discussions, and the proposed
new groups increase the possibilities. So, it makes sense to try to
reach people who had not been reached before. However, from what little
I know about AIP, I think it would be wrong to contend that they're
not interested.
|> So the saga of petty politiking and double standard continues. Imposing the
|> moderation criteria on SRH that were not imposed on SRV, posting the
Let me ask you - are you ready to make SRH robo-moderated? If not,
then your point about the moderation criteria is moot - you are
comparing a group which is moderated by software to one which is
moderated by a human. If you want to make SRH robo-moderated, please
say so.
|> Once again, if the intention is to expand the Hindu newsgroups, let's consider
|> it along the lines of SRV, with newsgroups devoted to specialized topics
|> such as:
|>
|> soc.religion.hindu.shivaite
|> soc.religion.hindu.vedas
|> soc.religion.hindu.puranas
|> soc.religion.hindu.bhajans
This split is illogical, as someone pointed out. Let's say I
want to discuss Shiva in the Vedic literatures - to which group
would I post? What if I wanted to talk about the relation between
the Vedas and Upanishads?
This "expansion" seems like another red herring.
-Vivek
submitted around Wed Dec 20 21:37:03 CST 1995
References:
