[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996 12:52:18 +0800 (MYT), SV Singam
(vijia@pop.jaring.my) wrote:
>>In accordance with the rules of USENET, everyone is allowed to say
>>whatever they want on this topic, and no one is preventing them.
>
>My concern here is that, as usual, the 'silent majority' don't really care
>what is happening. As a result, the 'outspoken few' have their say and very
>likely push their preferences through on the pretext that it is for the
>benefit of 'everyone'.
Everyone has the option to vote.
But you bring up an interesting point that I wanted to bring up
regarding this issue.
People say "Everyone here on s.r.h is happy with the status quo".
Well, this reminds me of the process of deciding on whether to change
the meeting night for a sankirtan/meditation group.
The usual course of action is to find out what night is best for all
those who have been attending every week. This is fair, because
these people have been the ones who have been participating.
However, if, for example, the meeting night is currently Thursday,
then the people who have been participating every week automatically
consists of everyone who CAN attend on Thursday.
And, everyone who CANNOT attend on Thursday, but otherwise might like
to participate, are not represented at all !
So, to say " Most people who currently read s.r.h want to keep it the
way it is now. " is pointless, because everyone who is unsatisfied has
obviously stop reading.
And, many people who might participate in a talk.religion.hindu
because it is unmoderated, would not be reading this moderated
group.
And, many people who don't read s.r.h because of the delays between
postings (and you can see them on s.c.i responding to some of the same
threads you see here) might participate if it were speeded up with the
help of multiple moderators.
So, the current readership of s.r.h, which is those who are satisfied
with the current setup, could well represent a minority of those who
would participate in the expanded system described in the RFD.
>>>The suitability of Ajay Shah as a moderator has been questioned.
>>
>>It really has not, especially when you consider that the RFD
>>proponents still are allowing Ajay Shah to be one of the moderators.
>
>If Ajayji has been doing a good enough job as moderator, additional
>moderators should not be necessary. If those who felt Ajayji help wished to
>help/support him had worked this out with him, all would have been well. To
>impose additional moderators is to imply that Ajayji was not coping well
>enough. To do so over Ajay's objections appears hostile. To 'allow him' to
>join the others seems to add insult to injury.
He was invited to be one of the original list of moderators in the
RFD.
Someone may be doing a perfectly good job of digging a long ditch, but
if you want the job done faster, you hire more ditch diggers.
Right now, Ajay is the sole authority in SRH. It is understandable
that he would reject attempts to dilute his authority by adding other
moderators.
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski
References:
