[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups is the Goal
In article <4di8mn$fq4@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) writes:
[...]
|> place there. Besides, all Vivek does by accusing me of being a Nazi,
|> however obliquely, is reveal just how desperate he is to discredit me
|> for posting the proof that the SRH reorganization is motivated by
|> vengeance against Ajay Shah.
No, here is what I pointed out:
When SRV was proposed, you actively worked to get people to vote
against the group. You kept repeating how SRV would be used as a
recruiting tool. Your main point was not the name of SRV - it was SRV
itself. You kept on making comparisons to the Scientologists, and you
tried to muster support from the ex-cult newsgroup. These aren't
reasonable actions if all you were interested in was the name "hindu".
Now, however, the neo-Nazis want a rec *newsgroup, and there is
evidence that they _actively_ want to recruit. However, this time,
rather than push the panic button, you compliment them with lines
like
"And his advice about avoiding flamewars is certainly welcome."
and
"His advice is well reasoned."
So tell me - why go ballistic when a Vaishnava discussion group is
brought up, but not even raise a finger in opposition when a neo-Nazi
group wants to recruit on the Internet?
Furthermore, you raised a big stink about how the SRV RFD didn't go to
people opposed to the group, and how it went to various mailing
list. Now, however, when the neo-nazis do the same thing, your
comments are: "Drumming up support for an RFD by sending email to
mailing lists is standard procedure. Proponents can also state in the
CFV that they intend to distribute the CFV on mailing lists."
So tell me - why was all of this evil when the Vaishnavas did it, and
why is it receiving your adulations when the neo-Nazis are doing it?
Even more curious is the traffic argument. When SRV was first
proposed, there was quite a bit of cross-posted flaming on ARV. People
like Jai Maharaj used to regular post threads like "The Genital
Mutilation of Children", etc. You, however, claimed that there wasn't
very much off-topic traffic, even though you'd only read the group
once.
The neo-Nazis, on the other hand, don't even bother justifying their
group with a claim about traffic, and you don't even bat an eye.
|> Vivek, can you say karma?
By all means, Arun. However, I also know that I responded to that
charge of yours quite a few times in the past:
The proposed RFD has statements which try to make srh.moderated
focus on religion, rather than politics. Obviously, in some cases,
politics and religion will overlap, and when that happens, the
RFD also has a statement which explains what the criteria are
for accepting articles dealing with politics.
Specifically, here are the revelant sentences from the RFD:
" 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."
If a newsgroup is to be a religious newsgroup, and not a
political propaganda newsgroup, then those conditions seem
quite reasonable.
The proposed RFD also has statements which govern the behavior
of the moderators. Specifically, the RFD treats the moderator
as a peer of the reader, not as the ruler or dictator. As such,
the moderators are not to "throw their weight around", and cannot
use their moderator position in arguments.
After all, if you believe that the newsgroup is to serve a
readership, rather than serve the needs of the moderator, these
guidelines seem quite reasonable. Here is the section from
the RFD:
"No person serving as moderator of the SRH.* groups may claim status as
such in any message except communication in his capacity as moderator
(such as with authors of postings to SRH.* groups), and in
administrative postings to said groups that relate to the newsgroup(s)
themselves. Specifically, no moderator may use the official
moderator's account for any purpose except performance of moderation
duties. Any claim to status in matters unrelated to the SRH.*
newsgroups, or misuse of the official moderation account for any
purpose other than performance of moderation duties, will be
considered grounds for automatic dismissal."
Once again, this seems quite reasonable, and the 4 proposed moderators
have agreed to these terms. I wholeheartedly support both of these
parts of the RFD, and both of them seem reasonable to me. I would
hope that they seem reasonable to a great number of people. If anyone
has objections to these parts of the RFD, I would be more than happy
to discuss them.
-Vivek
(Wed Jan 17 11:40:23 CST 1996)
