[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Religious unity
kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart) wrote:
>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.
You raise some very valid points. At the same time, I'm sure that you
can see it is quite impractical to try and cater to all the possible
participants. We have to work with the people who are already on SRH.
Frankly I have not seen any major problem on SRH that would 'drive
people away'. But then I have not been on board for very long. Perhaps
'traumatic' events occured before I subscribed. But if they had
happened, those skeletons would have been rattled in the open by now.
>From what I can see, there are two valid objections. Slow response
time and no backup hardware.
The unfairness of the current moderator is still unproven.
>>>>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.
I cannot claim to know the 'behind the scenes' activity. However I
sense that more has happened than is being portrayed here.
>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.
Yes, without a doubt, more diggers will dig the ditch much faster.
As has been pointed out, Ajay is now responding much faster than
before. Is this current response quick enough? If it is, are
additional moderators still necessary? Or are there fears that Ajay
will fall back to his 'slow' ways? Why don't we ask him?
The matter of hardware breakdown still needs to be addressed. Ajay did
ask how the proponents of reorg propose to deal with such breakdowns.
I do not remember reading any response. Did I miss it? Could someone
please repost the suggestion?
For that matter, does Ajay have any suggestions on hardware backup?
And can Ajay sustain the current response time?
I trust that Ajay will come forward with positive responses.
>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.
I'm sure it is understandable, viewed from a political perspective.
>From a service perspective, that may not be true. If Ajay had not felt
threatened, his response may have been different. But, as I said
earlier, I don't know the complete history. And I suppose every
version that has been and will be presented here will be distorted in
some way. So none of us will really know other than what we choose to
believe.
Has Ajay abused his 'sole authority'? Or has he simply been careless
about where he posted from? Are we going towards a point where we have
to watch our shadows?
Fellow Hindus, let us seek peace. Let us not challenge for peace! Let
us all sincerely and humbly seek peace.
Peace and blessings.
SV Singam
Minden, Penang
Follow-Ups:
References:
