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

Re: RFD:SRH (I am *NOT* interested in *Nazi* stuff) Sigh



In article <4dmbif$b7v@sundog.tiac.net>, Arun Malik <vri@tiac.net> wrote:
[...]
>BTW, Gopal, can't you see the human element behind this proposal?  If
>you were a moderator of a newsgroup, working hard to advance hindu
>dharma, and immediately after you posted an article supporting SRHV
>instead of SRV, a group of people who were voracious supporters of SRV
>suddenly  post an RFD to re-organize the newsgroup you were
>moderating,  would you not believe that it was motivated by vengeance?
>Particularly when they state this openly - as in the  article I quote
>below.  Would you trust them?

>Arun Malik
[...]

[i am assuming that the above para is addressed to me]

i prefer not to be dragged into nazi-non-nazi fight.
i do not like  to take sides in the old fight between individuals.
but since you are asking me a question, i will try to give my sincere
opinion. since it is *my* opinion, how many of the readers agree or
disagree, is not a question i ponder over.

it is not uncommon to express emotions in an outburst, when a sincere
effort to create a newsgrop (srv) are seemingly scuttled through
email spams  and/or posts after RFD phase. and, for readers who
are not regular visitors of srh, but who do vote on subjects of interest
to indians and hindus, the designation "moderator" of srh carries
a lot more weight than is being implied by some posters. i suspect that
the proportion of such "foreign" voters is usually significant, and 
sometimes overwhelmingly so, like in soc.culture.hawaii vote.so, if
such spams/or posts claim that the opinions expressed are those of
the moderator/editor, the proponents of srv (who ever they might be)
are bound to be upset.

(i am *not* implying that ajay shah has *misused* his position, *nor*
that he did *not* dissociate from Jai M email campaign. there could
*even* be some *reasoning* in his mind for  Jai M  to feel his 
campaign has blessings of ajay shah , even though in actuality  
this may be wrong. therefore, i am not sitting in judgement  on 
the past events to which i am not privy, except by occassional 
browsing of the archives).

at the time the  note  that you included was written, there *was* 
already some story, and to *ignore* it altogether and harp on *only* 
one side of it again and again, ignoring the explanations, is definitely
*not* rational. whether the *facts* on which such a note relied
upon *existed* or not is not important. Instead what is more important
is whether there were adequate grounds to a  "belief" in the existence 
of such facts  existed at that moment. just read, once again, the 
*subject* of the post you included.

Actually, i have even more reasons to believe in sincerity of RFD
excercise: (1) the proponents entered into dialogue with Ajay Shah 
*before* finalising and releasing RFD (2) they claimed they offered 
moderatorship to him, (3) (1) and (2) above remain uncontested so far, 
(4) they continue to state that the offer of moderatorship to ajay 
shah is *still* open, (5) they also offered moderatorship (--i might 
be wrong, but vaguely remember to have read about it in a recent 
post --)  to V K Rao  with seemingly *opposite* views to them, 
that offer too having been made *prior* to release of the RFD, (6) 
they are willing for a compromise and *did* spell out some details
for it, (7) they were and are contributors to srh, (8) without being 
on the moderator-panel, it is next to impossible to *gain* control 
over srh.  they *never* asked for a position of moderatorship. 

depite all this if some one *wants* say 'it is good politics' 
i choose, *not*  to aruge.

(i check here: did i even *indirectly* imply that i doubt ajay shah's
sincerity or commitment to srh or hindu-dharma? i hope not. if i did
please be assured, it was not intentinal)

I, for one, find it difficult to believe that the entire process
of RFD drafting, patiently replying to almost every post, maintaining
an faq, et cetera is *absolutely* *without* interest in srh, and that it
is *merely* meant to take that so-called revenge against opponents of 
srv, that too *after* successfully  creating srv.   at least, i rather 
wish i do not ever become so skeptical in life.

But one thing i can tell: the  repeated posts and discussion of 
abridged versions of a post -- has been *unfair* to Shrisha Rao. In
the same post which was so often quoted, he expressed  in
no uncertain terms that he  does  *not* mind who the moderators
would be, and that he would *not* mind  if  the current moderator
himself continued as  the moderator after reorg, and he *only*
wanted the *charter* to be well formulated for the good of all.
This remained unquoted, and i always wonder: why?

now: Cant i see *human* element behind the proposal? yes. i can.
     Do i *trust* them? without a figment of doubt.



>---------------- start quote -------------------
>Re: Fishy E-Mail: vote against soc.religion.vaishnava
>From: vivek@medea.cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) 
>Date: 1995/11/13
>
>MessageID: 488lua$mk7@larry.rice.edu#1/1
>
>Therefore, I would hope that peopl of good conscience would get
>quite angry with you if you scuttle a newsgroup for your political
>desires, and they would see to it that your politics don't interfere
>with religion any more.
>
>That is what you will have to contend with as the result of your
>actions.
>
>Can you say karma?
>
>-Vivek
>
>----------------- End quote ----------------------------------------
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.