[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SRH Reorg: the real moderation policy

Namaskar,

I must admit that I am somewhat saddened by such comments.  Saddened,
but not really surprised.  Since Vivekji has quoted my entire post, 
*except* one paragraph!   

Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:

: In Ajay's article, he selectively cuts a line from the moderation
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: policy in order to criticize it. What he doesn't include is the
: full sentence, or even the next one, which is directly relevant
: to the section he quoted. I discuss this below.

So, the conclusion, one has to draw is that either you agree with 
the following paragraph, or have no response to it.  In that case,
I am glad that you agree that the current moderation policy is pretty
good!

Since Vivekji left out this paragraph, I am re-posting it: 

----------------------------------------
6. Perhaps some past commentrator (3023 years ago) would have considered
Mahabharat as a matter of politics between Kaurava and Pandava and
rejected the postings, or consider Ramayan as a matter of politics between 
Lord Shree Ram and Ravan...So the ideal moderation policy is what SRH 
already has.  Allowing all the sides to be heard in a personal attack free 
environment. A forum where the voice of all the Hindus can be heard

Surely, an un-moderated newsgroup for such discussion is proposed.  But
why not allow such discussions in a moderated personal attack free
environment?
------------------------------------------
So, Vivekji, why did you leave out this particular paragraph?
It is these double standards that you employ, whether it is in regards
to the charter of SRV vs. charter of SRH, whether Vaishnavas are Hindu
or not Hindus, etc., that pains me as a Hindu, and it is for this
reason, that I have called this re-org. move personal vendetta and petty
politics driven.
I am appending your post, so the readers can verify the facts for
themselves, and opt for SRH moderation policy that is toward inclusion and not
exclusion of all Hindus on the net 

regards,

ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu



: In article <4bdste$j38@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
: |> The RFD for the re-organization, based on personal vendetta and petty
: |> politics specifies that in the new group:

: Ajay seems to believe that if you repeat a lie enough times,
: below will eventually believe it. This isn't the first time that
: his post has started with something about vendettas and politics,
: and I suspect it won't be the last. It's interesting to me that 
: in temples, etc., when something religious is about to take place, 
: some sort of invocation to God is made to bless the event. I guess
: such is not the case here.

: |> ---------Quote from RFD --------------
: |> Political announcements, hortatory articles, calls-to-action,
: |> reminders of past misdeeds, special-format postings, etc., will be
: |> rejected,
: |> --------------------------------------
: |> 
: |> I would like the readers of this group to judge this statment on its
: |> own merit, but here are some points to ponder:

: The first point to ponder is this: Why did Ajay cut that quote
: right after the comma? More importantly, since he seems to have
: read the RFD several times, why didn't he include the next
: sentene, which also mentions politics. Here are the two sentences
: in their entirety:

: " Political announcements, hortatory articles, calls-to-action,
:   reminders of past misdeeds, special-format postings, etc., will be
:   rejected, as will postings that espouse hate. Moderators will
:   discourage political discussions, but will permit postings that
:   mention politics, as long as such are of an interest to a
:   non-political audience."

: So, it seems that politics can be mentioned, as long is it is of
: interest to a non-political audience! It seems that this guideline
: makes sense, since this group is supposed to be soc.RELIGION.hindu,
: and not soc.politics.hindu.

: |> 1. ISKCON temples in UK and Armenia were under legal and bigoted 
: |> attack.  A Call for Action, asking for letter writing etc.  was issued by 
: |> ISKCON temples.  Under the proposed guidelines, this post would
: |> have been rejected.  

: My guess is that the post would've met the criteria of the second
: sentence - the one you omitted.

: |> Should the discrimination against Hindus not 
: |> be portrayed on a *moderated* Hindu newsgroup?  Should not its readers
: |> be asked to take action?  Would SRV reject such a post?

: SRV, as you know, is auto-moderated, so the acceptance or rejection
: of a post has little to do with the statements made in the post. The
: software would have checked the post for keywords, and if it found
: _any_ of the keywords, it would have accepted the post.

: |> 2. Hindu Temple in Fiji was burnt down last year.  Would writing against
: |> such incident be considered political?  Should a call for action against
: |> such atrocity go un-read by the *moderated* soc.religion.hindu readers?

: Once again, you have confused the issue. The article would have been
: about a temple, and politics is a sidebar. Therefore, in my opinion,
: the second sentence, which you omitted, would apply.

: |> 3. Can one imagine a Jewish newsgroup's charter would be written 
: |> where it is specifically forced that the Holocaust not be mentioned?
: |> Should the moderators impose their political ideology on the readers
: |> and demand that Hindu suffering of the past and present not be mentioned
: |> in any article on this newsgroup? 

: I guess this is a reference to the "Hindu suffering" articles which
: mention possible suffering from 1000 years back, right? Tell me -
: what is the purpose of such an article on a religious newsgroup?

: |> 5. No proponent of RFD has been able to prove that postings were 
: |> rejected based on ideology, political affiliation etc.  on 

: "ideology" - actually, that was mentioned. You forget the Shiva Purana
: post, which had statements straight out of Hindu literature. You
: rejected that one. What other statements from Hindu literature will
: you reject?

: |> So the ideal moderation policy is what SRH already has.  

: This is very humble of you - deny the possibility that there is
: room for improvement, and you can claim perfection.

: |> Sure, an un-moderated newsgroup for such discussion is proposed.  But why 
: |> not allow such discussions in a moderated personal attack free environment?
: |> Why this rush to elimiate a *moderated* forum that Hindus already have
: |> for such discussion?

: There is no "rush" to eliminate a moderated forum. There is an attempt
: to move postings which espouse hatred out of the moderated forum, and
: so far, you haven't been able to show otherwise.

: |> Once again, please do not construde any of this as personal attacks  But 
: |> it is certainly worth noting that one of the proponents voted against 
: |> the creation of this newsgroup, then, at the first opportunity (normal 
: |> re discussion on newsgroup process takes 3 months, and RFD came out 3 1/2
: |> months later) asked for a reorganization of this newsgroup.  Politics?

: For an answer to this question, please read
: http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-stats.html

: |> You decide!!

: Yes, please decide.

: -Vivek
Follow-Ups: References:
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.