[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH, GHEN, and red herrings
In article <4bdstv$j3a@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> Saprem Namaskar.
My hats off to you, Ajay, for not starting this post with
something about personal vendettas and politics. Perhaps now,
you are starting to take seriously your own words of "I hope
that the re-org issue can be discussed in an environment of
trust and honesty and not emotional outbursts".
I am glad to see that we're making progress.
|> I am glad to see that some of the proponets of the SRH re-organization
|> are taking pride in the fact that their sites are included in the
|> Hindu Universe.
Well, given that Dr. Bhatnagar, who hosts the Hindu Universe
on his personal machine, was trying to claim that we did not
"value Hinduism" (I can supply the exact quote if you'd like),
I merely wanted to point out that if the proponents didn't
value Hinduism, the GHEN didn't seem to agree with that assessment.
So, yes, when insulted in that manner by Dr. Bhatnagar, I
wanted to point out that his _own machine_ contains references
to some of the work done by the proponents.
|> Afterall, we even provide multiple links to the site created by one
|> of the proponents of SRH re-organization who actually voted against
|> the creation of Soc.Religion.Hindu
It seems to me that this should be a non-issue, right? After all,
you state that "My primary goal being, to offer widest possible
exposure to the Hindu ideas and ideals that we and other people
have put together on the net," so why is it necessary to point out
that "we _even_ provide..." (emphasis mine)? It seems to me that
you want to make an issue of his vote against the group.
|> The proponents of SRH re-organization have first kept the word Hindu
|> out of the Vaishnava newsgroup (SRV), and then, have proceeded to
|> destroy the existing Hindu newsgroup, SRH.
Destroy the existing Hindu newsgroup?
Did I miss when this occurred? The only thing "destroying" SRH has
been the long delays in approving posts, as documented in
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html
I believe that if there weren't so many 5-10 day delays on this
newsgroup, there would be much more traffic.
|> All this, merely because,
|> in the spirit of Hindu unity, I sought incorporation of the word Hindu
|> in the newsgroup name Soc.religion.hindu.
And it's good that you incorporated the word Hindu into
soc.religion.hindu. After all, otherwise, it would just be
soc.religion, and the Hindus on the net would never have found
it!
|> Hopefully, the readers will clearly see through this.
See through what? The last thing you spoke about was Hindu
unity.
|> After all,
|> why didn't the proponents of Soc.religion.Vaishnava proceed to create
|> other philosophy/functionality based newsgroups, such as
|> soc.religion.hindu.shivaite, soc.religion.hindu.bhagwadgita,
|> soc.religion.hindu.vedas, soc.religion.hindu.bhajans etc.?
The group soc.religion.vaishnava was formed because
alt.religion.vaisnava had become a wasteland for cross-posts. I'm
sure you're familiar with one of the people who posted much of
the garbage into ARV - his name is Jai Maharaj, and a sample topic
that he posted into ARV was "The Genital Mutilation of Children".
Tell me, Ajay - if you were interested in a newsgroup where talk
about Vishnu was taking place, and someone wanted to flood the
newsgroup with talk about circumcision, what would you have done?
The readers of ARV did the logical thing - they created SRV, and
the policies of SRV prevent (to a large extent) the newsgroup from
being abused like ARV was.
However, all of this is immaterial to the discussion at hand, and
you know that. We're talking about SRH, and you're waving a red
herring, somehow implying that SRV was created in response to SRH.
It wasn't - it was created because ARV was being maliciously
attacked by off-topic articles which were massively cross-posted.
|> Surely, they would have found everyone's hearty support in this effort.
|> Then again, perhaps, it was the word Hindu that prevented them from
|> suggesting these groups?
Three of the groups you propose above overlap _heavily_, and you
haven't suggested any reason why those three would be created. In
fact, if you are interested, I will be more than happy to draft
up an RFD with you and to be a proponent with you. However, you'll
have to convince me how those groups are logically separated. Is
there really enough discussion about bhajans on SRH to warrant its
own newsgroup? Are there people who want to talk about bhajans but
find that the delays in SRH are causing problems? If you can convince
me why you want SRH.bhajans, I will be more than happy to work
with you in the future to create it.
-Vivek
(submitted around Fri Dec 22 11:40:31 CST 1995)
References: