[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: RFD: SRH (*unfair* criticism of proponents)
In article <KHY/wQ9zBYxW089yn@mantra.com>,
Dr. Jai Maharaj <jai@eskimo.com> wrote:
>=== Proof SRH is Retaliation Against Ajay Shah for SRV (Repost) ===
[much of the *evidence* of and *outcry* against email *spams*
against srv, have been pushed to the bottom, to make room for
some aspects of posts consistently supressed]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This is *not* an attempt to restart the battles once again.
but, when i stumbled through some of the past archieves,
i realised that the discussion of several posts based on
one of S Rao post were very highly distorted and were
*unfair* to him.
after RFD debate was complete, and *before* CFV for SRV was
issued, he cautioned *explicitly* that
there should be *no* email *spam* against srv, [since
spams are always considered to be against usenet conventions],
and since RFD was very much and very well *debated* before the
issue of CFV,-- and he did this through an open post. Note this
caution came *after* a post by ajay shah signing as *editor*
srh, with an appeal against the naming of group as srv
and in a group that did not discuss srv, and *after* RFD
discussions ceased, and the questionnaire was filed with
usenet admin (a formality before issue of CFV). This
obviously takes away an opportunity for proponents to
argue their case, since they are (at least) bound by
usenet regulations.
*Yet*, we see that Jai M has campaigned (asking for NO votes)
through email,unsolicited mostly, and claiming that his
action has *approval* of ajay shah. and there were *several*
complaints against this on net-abuse group.
i am *not* blaming ajay shah or jai maharaj. they might already
have given good explanations. but,*at* the *time* S Rao wrote
that famous article (which we all discussed), these explanations
were not yet presented. Who would not get angry, if after such
a genuine interest, and donkey-labour of drafting, defending,
and popularizing the srv idea, and convincing, if some one
suddenly pops up against usenet conventions, posts articles and
makes email spams and if the proponents at that stage can only take
a blow without opportunity to defend? at least the proponents can
not indulge in practices against usenet conventions!!Any explanations from
ajay shah or jai M must have come *much* later, after that particuar
post.
Even after such angry outburst, one has to see how balanced
S Rao was in his apporach: in *that* *very* *same* *post* he says
(ofcourse after the quotes that have extensively appeared
in the RFD debate): 'i am not interested in being a moderator'
' i do not mind if Ajay shah continues as moderator'. 'what
all i want is to define the *charter* more clearly such that there
is unanimity in understanding its provisions, and there is
a way for redressal of grievances against posts and rejections'
(paraphrased by me)
all the people (opponents of the current RFD)who posted that article
removed those portions, and we (or people like me, strangers)
got highly distorted view. I can only imagine why i did
not find a fuller post from the proponents. may be they conducted
well in separating srv and srh issues completely, and sincerely.
[please understand one thing: i am *not* putting my accusing
fingers against ajay shah or jai m. they might have perfectly
*valid* reasons, and might have already given explanations.
but strangers like me, who were essentially drawn to s.r.h.
only through RFD debates, the history is unknown. and what i
got earlier was a *distorted* picture completely biased against
S Rao. i am just writing to let strangers like me to know that
there is *other* side of the story too. and that when we start
with a clean slate no side is losing too much in ego.
G.Sree Ramana Gopal
[Two excerpts that i intend to present follow. Later the
excerpts from Jai M post will continue for comparision as
to what aspects have not been discussed so far]
--------------------begin inclusion 1---------------------
Re: RE: RFD: Soc.Religion.Vaishnava (Hirarchy Change Request)
From: Shrisha.Rao@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Shrisha Rao)
Date: 1995/10/17
MessageID: 4619m8$qfa@news4.digex.net#1/1
newsgroups: news.groups
Shrisha Rao addressing Ajay Shah wrote:
[.........]
P.S. Don't bother to organize an e-mail spam against the SRV vote, when it
comes -- you did that once with SRH and were lucky, but this time you'll
have a big backlash, just as Jai Maharaj has had recently. By the way, why
did you allow a posting by Jai asking for volunteers to organize a vote
bank to block "newsgroups that oppose religion"? Don't you know that is a
call for vote fraud? Or do you feel so close to The Good Doctor that
you're willing to go out on limb for him? Disgusting.
----------------------end inclusion 1-------------------------
=====================begin inclusion 2========================
Pre-RFD: soc.religion.hindu.* reorganization (Was: Re: Fishy E-Mail: vote
against soc.religion.vaishnava)
From: shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao)
Date: 1995/11/10
MessageID: 4805t4$t1k@nyx10.cs.du.edu#1/1
newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.net-abuse.misc,alt.religion.vaisnava
[*chomp*]
There are any number of actual examples of how SRH isn't working the
way it should, but for practical reasons, just consider --
[...]
6> we need to see more than one moderator, so that the group is not
unduly influenced by one person's biases, and so that it is easier to
address grievances.
I would like to propose a reorganization that addresses all these
problems. At the outset, let me make it clear that I do not wish to be
moderator, nor even to have a say over who becomes moderator (I would
not even oppose Ajay Shah being moderator, provided the rules were
clearly laid out).^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[this emphasis added by Gopal]
I think the RFD should have a proposal for an *unmoderated*
soc.religion.hindu.misc (replaces existing soc.religion.hindu) -- it's
too stifling that the only Hindu forum on the 'Net is moderated; a
soc.religion.hindu.info (moderated) for informational postings only;
and a group soc.religion.hindu.moderated. In all charters, it is
essential to state that personal attacks are not encouraged/allowed,
that the moderated newsgroups will not be used to carry postings
violative of Netiquette (as in permitting discussions of RFDs,
vote-solicitations, etc.). There also has to be a system of a minimum
of three moderators who share responsibility, with disputes being
resolved by majority vote only.
Please let me have your feedback, so that we can incorporate popular
opinion into the RFD. I have started working on a draft, and we should
see something come of this in short order.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
========================end inclusion 2=-============================
--------------continuation of Jai M post , that is, his inclusion--
>:
>: Re: Pre-RFD: soc.religion.hindu.* reorganization (Was: Re:
>: Fishy E-Mail: vote against soc.religion.vaishnava)
>:
>: From: vijaypai@pi.rice.edu (Vijay Sadananda Pai)
>: Date: 1995/11/10
>: MessageID: 480a7j$811@larry.rice.edu#1/1
>: References: <YkcZV9200iISFPpqVE@andrew.cmu.edu>
>: <47trej$2js@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
>: <4805t4$t1k@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
>: Organization: Rice University
>: Newsgroups: news.groups
>:
>: In article <4805t4$t1k@nyx10.cs.du.edu>,
>: Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu> wrote:
>:
>:> I think there is no real purpose, now to a threadbare analysis
>:> of what exactly happened. I was pretty certain Ajay Shah would
>:> try to e-mail spam against the SRV vote, and it appears he has
>:> at least endorsed such, if not done it himself. His actions in
>:> this matter are certainly not such as would bring him the
>:> esteem of honorable men and women.
>:
>: Yes, I too am also _very_ surprised. He has not publicly
>: denounced or distanced himself from Jai's email spam, I would
>: like to see him do so. I still, in my heart of hearts, hope that
>: Ajay, as a sincere representative of Hindu Students Council,
>: does indeed distance himself from Jai Maharaj. I expect as much,
>: actually; otherwise, the HSC is best to choose another moderator
>: from their ranks who better shows that HSC is ethically above
>: reproach.
>:
>:> Is there any interest, I wonder, in a reorganization of the
>:> soc.religion.hindu.* hierarchy so that it becomes more useful to
>:> people and less of one unscrupulous individual's fiefdom?
>:
>: ---- end quote -----
>:
>: I had some trouble with my newsreader. Hopefully, this article
>: won't appear twice. If so, I apologize for the inconvenience.
>:
>: Arun Malik
>:
>====================================================================
---------------end original Jai M article--------------------------
end
References:
