[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH reorganization
In article <4d2a35$6oj@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1996, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:
>
>> I am rather disappointed at the level of discourse that has taken place over
>> the SRH reorganization proposal so far. Instead of focussing the merits or
>
>So am I.
However, I note that the direction and level of the discussion has been
dictated by the opponents to the reorganization rather than by its
proponents -- as such, an opponent's lamentation about such can only be
read as an admission of guilt. Anyway, let's move on...
>> otherwise of the reorganization proposal itself, all discussion has hitherto
>> centered upon who the reorganization proponents are.
>
>However, exploration of motives behind any proposal would be worth
>discussing, wouldn't you think?
NOT when such is to the complete exclusion of the merits of the proposal
itself. If one rejects a worthwhile proposal based simply upon some real
or imagined vice seen in its proponent(s), one is surely on less sure
footing than if one were to examine the merits -- or lack thereof -- of
the proposal itself and announce one's decision based upon them.
It is sad that the opponents of the reorganization have, time and again,
misrepresented facts on several issues, have steered clear of any kind of
purposeful exchange on the merits of the proposal itself, and have
consistently played false. This is a pity not only because such conduct is
not morally certifiable, but also because these people have, in the
process, missed a good chance to influence the outcome of events, to work
for the benefit of all, and to make a positive difference.
One of the rules of thumb that some are given is the Reasonable Person
Principle -- given any situation, do what a reasonable person would do.
The emphasis, one notes, is on reason, not on emotion, the carrying over
of past conflicts, or the urge for revenge. It is not clear to me that the
hypothetical Reasonable Person would commend the opponents of the
reorganization for their attitudes toward it. Put in a nutshell, the
entire thesis of the opponents seems to be: the reorganization is revenge
for past opposition to the creation of another newsgroup, and thus, we
oppose it. Never mind that the reorganization makes sense, and that the
revenge thesis does not really hold water. Anyway, harking back to our
mythical Reasonable Person, one must consider that such an individual
would surely point out that the opponents' thesis can easily be turned
against them, for it is equally possible to say: the reorganization is a
perfectly sensible move, which some oppose based only upon the lame excuse
that some of its proponents/supporters were involved in the creation of
another group; the opponents, in fact, are the ones out for revenge, since
they seek to block the reorganization out of pique at having failed to
prevent the creation of the other newsgroup.
How, then, is one to proceed to convince the Reasonable Person that the
former thesis is the more acceptable? The claims made by both sides are
somewhat at variance, and might not be acceptable to a neutral, since they
come from people representing partisan interests. Moreover, inasmuch as
the issue is one of deciding which -- if either -- of the two sides
commands a morally superior position, it has no real objective solution,
since morality is an intensely individual and subjective thing. A
Reasonable Person would, moreover, have little interest in picking nits in
the characters of various individuals, since ultimately what matters is
the worth of the reorganization itself -- a worthwhile reorganization
proposed by blackguards and knaves is preferable over one of dubious worth
that comes due to the greatest saints. Thus, the analysis of character and
motivation is not only exceedingly difficult to accomplish, but is
ultimately pointless as well.
Far be it from me to claim status as a Reasonable Person (although it is
certainly an ideal that I aspire for); I merely note that several
individuals whom I disagree with openly on one or more issues seem to
nevertheless agree that it is better to consider whether there is a prima
facie case for a reorganization as proposed, rather than to digress into
perceived fallacies in the motives of its proponents. Thus, I find myself
encouraged to think that these several individuals, whom I consider
imperfect but valuable representations of the Reasonable Person,
demonstrate that such an individual would fail to commend the opponents'
case against the reorganization.
>> 1. The present SRH reorganization proposal is not "revenge" for Ajay's position
>> on SRV. Even though Ajay's own behavior during the SRV creation stage was
>> less than acceptable. Firstly, Ajay did not say anything of consequence when
>> the RFD for SRV was issued.
>
>This is NOT true. Prior to RFD was posted, I communicated my opinion
>to Shrisha Raoji. I also posted one message during RFD.
Let's see. As I have pointed out more than once before, you summarily
broke off the exchange before the RFD; quite evidently, you did not intend
to discuss the matter, and were content with communicating your opinion.
Also, the message you posted was _not_ during the RFD: it came precisely
after the RFD was over, and the questionnaire had been submitted and the
votetaker assigned. Even so, there were replies made to that message, but
none came from you. Again, you evidently did not intend to discuss the
matter. Considering the vigor of the RFD discussion on that proposal,
furthermore, _one_ message hardly seems a substantial contribution --
those who were seriously opposed to the newsgroup and/or to some aspect of
it such as its name, made many more, and made sure to follow up when
necessary.
>> He waited till the CFV came out, and people were
>> already voting on SRV, with a proposal to change the name to SRHV. I have no
>> idea what he thought he was accomplishing by that.
>
>As I mentioned countless times before, I posted the message primarily in
>response to my perception of the need of Hindu unity after the ISKCON
>temple decision in UK
However, as Vidyasankar asks, what exactly did you accomplish by that?
What did you hope or expect to accomplish?
>> The reasons for not
>> including
>> the word hindu in SRV had been discussed ad nauseum during the RFD stage
>> itself,
>> and nothing Ajay said or did later could have changed that. If Ajay felt
>
>In fact, in my message, I clearly stated that it was a personal opinion,
>and may not affect anything as far as the over all result was concerned.
However, it would have been better, one thinks, had you --
1> Responded to the followups that were made to your postings.
2> Clearly refuted the several reasons that were detailed for the name.
3> Not posted your "opinion" almost exclusively to newsgroups which had
not had any discussion about the subject.
>> actions only lead me to suspect that all Ajay was interested then was in the
>> defeat of SRV. Furthermore, Ajay did not dissociate himself from Jai Maharaj's
>> postings of edited CFV's, which implied that Jai had Ajay's backing.
>
>1. I had not such interest. I did not even post my message on SRH.
It would, in fact, have been better had you posted to SRH. Your posting to
newsgroups that had never had a discussion about the proposal was not
quite fair play, as it was obviously intended to disinfluence "virgin"
audiences who had not known of the correct facts.
>2. PLEASE, PLEASE stop claiming that I did not dissociate my self from
>Jai Maharaj ji. The very day I was sent Jai Maharaj ji's note by Badrai
>ji from Cornell, I sent him a note claiming that that I had nothing to do
>with Jai Maharaj ji's message. I even posted a message to that effect
>immediately on news.groups. In fact Jai ji himself posted such a note.
I must say, however, that your claimed dissociation was far from
convincing, since you did not actually repudiate Jai Maharaj at any time,
and also did not clearly state that Jai's statement: "This request has the
endorsement of Ajay Shah" -- or words to that effect -- was false. In
spite of this being pointed out repeatedly.
>But since the proponents of SRV like yourself and other
>supporters/proponents continue to propagate this untrue statement, I
>must, sadly, doubt the intentions and honesty behind the entire re-org move.
As I've pointed out before, such doubts, however, should not prevent you
from working with the proponents toward improvement. It should also not
prevent you from facing facts as they are, instead of attempting to paint
false-color pictures.
>> the outcome of the Usenet vote decide the issue. Ajay has not responded to
>> this yet. The ball is in his court. It is clear that he does not want to
>> return it.
>
>I have already put forth a proposal for better presentation of Hindu
>newsgroups on the net in a separate posting.
Yes -- and that has nothing new; you've suggested that before, and I've
pointed out why it is not workable (several groups are misnamed, are in
the wrong hierarchies, etc.). Besides, I did also ask you to note that
your suggestion was incompatible with the claim that the reorganization is
not justified by traffic considerations. I ask you once again, to clearly
state that this is so. Your explicit statement to this effect will
definitely help clear the air considerably.
>> 4. In my opinion, Ajay, as the moderator of the existing SRH, could have
>> handled the whole reorganization issue better. The proponents of this reorganization
>> have been fair enough in discussing it with him before posting the RFD. As
>> such,
>> he knew in advance that the proposal for reorganization was going to be
>> discussed in public, and that his performance as a moderator would be
>> evaluated.
>
>SRH was merely 3 months into effect when the re-org proposal came out.
>The pre-RFD was issued only 2 months after SRH was in effect. The
>pre-RFD follwed immediately after I posted my view on word Hindu in
>SRV. One of the proponents of SRV (and SRH re-org proponent) publicly
>said that "I should be hit in my home turf" or something to that effect
>for posting my personal opinion on inclusion of word Hindu in SRV.
Once again, it is a pity that you choose to misstate facts willfully. I
point out that according to your own claim, you posted your view about
having the word 'Hindu' during the RFD discussion: it is easy to verify
that the Pre-RFD did not come out until much later. As such, the claim
that the Pre-RFD "followed immediately after" is incorrect. In addition,
no proponent of SRV asked that he be hit in his home turf -- whatever that
means.
>Surely, those not associated with SRV creation as you were, will see the
>direct connection. The evaluation of performance as a moderator etc. is
>mostly based on skewed statistics any way.
I am not a statistics person, and am thus not really competent to rebut
such a claim as above. However, it would be easier to understand and
believe it if it were backed by a competent alternative analysis of facts
and figures that showed precisely where the skew originated and exists.
>> reorganized group, maybe Ajay was confident that the voting would turn out in
>> favor of status quo. In other words, he was willing to risk the future of SRH
>> to the outcome of a Usenet vote. His continued silence on the compromise
>> proposal indicates that he is still willing to go ahead with it. He cannot find
>> fault with the reorganization proponents later on, if the outcome of the vote
>> turns out in favor of reorganization.
>
>No. It would have meant that no one will stand up for the word Hindu in
>the future because they will be afraid of consequences. As I mentioned
>during the pre-RFD debate, I definitely do not mind losing moderatorship
>of SRH, but I will stand up for the word Hindu and Hindu unity.
Quite commendable. I mean that sincerely. However, it is not clear why a
clear stand in favor of Hindu unity precludes a statement about the
compromise plan. I myself am quite in favor of Hindu unity, and I have
made clear in the past that Hinduism is far too important to me to be
diluted with petty religious matters, such as would result from it being
defined as the confluence of disparate faiths, or as the set of those
doctrines that accept the Vedas. I am genuinely disappointed that the plea
of standing up for Hindu unity is chanted over and over, as a convenient
"out" whenever a more sensible answer does not exist. It demonstrates with
painful clarity that what Vidyasankar said earlier was true -- the unity
claimed to be aspired for is not genuine, but is unity on certain specific
terms. Frankly, that is not what I would call "Hindu" unity, although it
could well be an acceptable model for unity under terror.
>> 7. Finally, don't judge this issue by the names of the proponents. Sooner or
>
>Why? Is it because you admit to them being too controversial? Or is it
>because they indeed mooted the re-org as a personal vendetta and petty
>political move?
Neither. Because such is not a sensible thing to do. This I have explained
in detail earlier in this posting. I also note that your responses are
selective: you jumped from point 1 to point 4 to point 7. Why? Are we to
understand that you accept points 2, 3, 5 and 6?
>> If Ajay responds to the compromise proposal and agrees to have more moderators,
>> the voting may be unnecessary. SRH will be more dynamic and Ajay will have
>> some assistance in his duties as moderator. I request him to take up the offer
>> seriously and come to a compromise amicably, in the interests of unity.
>
>If more Hindu newsgroups is indeed what is sought, if indeed more diverse
>representation of Hindu discussion topics is sought, let us agree to the
>proposal that I have made and create additional newsgroups along the
>lines of SRV, and let us incorporate all the prominent contributors as
>moderators and advisors to those newsgroups.
Unity on your own terms? I have pointed out that your suggestion is
unviable. Please do respond to that. Also, do clarify that traffic _does_
justify a reorganization.
>But imposing different set of rules on SRH and SRV moderation, posting
>RFD to different set of newsgroups, allowing calls for action in one
>newsgroup and not on the other, preventing posts that affect Hindu unity
>and survival under the guise of politics etc. do not speak well for
>re-org move.
All the claims made above have been refuted: the "different rules" are
only to the extent that creation of a single new newsgroup, and
reorganization of an existing one into a more dynamic hierarchy, are
necessarily different things; and computer moderation where nothing is
rejected on content, and human moderation where content is a consideration
are different things.
Besides, I must add that mere repetition of long-refuted claims, with no
attempt at all to look into the merits of the effort itself, does not
speak well of the opposition to the reorganization.
>If indeed there were *any* legitimate complaints, they could have been
>brought forward. But readers of SRH had not seen any such complaints
>before RFD.
Would you, then, be willing to certify that not one reader of SRH had seen
the Pre-RFD, whose existence you have previously accepted? Hardly. Thus,
the above claim is not true.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>> S. Vidyasankar
>regards,
>
>ajay shah
>editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
>ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
