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

Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon

GOPAL  Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: Sam Sanders  <sns@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: >I agree wholeheartedly with Sri Singam.
: >Please come to a compromise..eliminate the RFD and work togethar.
: >
: >I urge both sides to show flexibility and not spoil SRH.


: I think already most people have shown some flexibility
: from both sides. we need some parental figure to put 
: these things together (provided bjp-anti-bjp  flares
: on another thread do not catch up here!). (im *not*) 

: (--please make corrections in  the following
: statements, if i am wrong, since i am essentially writing 
: from my memory of discussions; but dont start flames, again!)

: if by chance, your fingers take  precedence over heart 
: and start responding just by looking at a given point, 
: please wait until you press the "send" button, and pause, 
: and reflect: can i bear this,.... to stop the flames?)

: (1) V Pai  has expressed willingness to discuss the suggestion
: (from Raj B?) that Ajay may be given freedom to choose
: a couple of co-moderators. (just for record... i opposed it
: *at this* stage, since, i thought it might be unfair to the 
: proposed moderators, but my opinions need not count)

: (2) N Tiwari has supported the concept of multiple moderators
: provided they are not imposed (*not* his word i guess).(1)
: *partly* satisfies his concern. (obviously, in a compromise
: you dont find fully satisfied parties,.... only  *unsatisfied*
: or partly satisfied.  so , he should think he is lucky!  just
: kidding)

: (3) N Tiwari has supported the concept of talk.religion.hindu
: unmoderated for posts such as muslim demolition of temples,
: india-pakistan tensions etc. i dont remember to have seen
: serious objections to this proposal, from others either.

No I did not. I think that issues, where religion and politics
are mixed, should be permitted to appear in the s.r.h. 
Or else, if tomorrow, the ISCKON temple is broken in 
London, how else you will reach the max. concerned 
audience. A post on talk group will not do good, since
not many people read talk groups.

: (4) Jai M and some others have expressed some reservations
: for info group.  (even though, again, i am not convinced of
: the objections, and even though a  recent post by Badrinarayanan 
: S speaks good of the info proposal), that  may be kept on 
: hold for some  time (who am i to recommend, or, to ignore 
: Badrinarayanan's suggestion?..  i am only  thinking aloud!)

: (5) Even Ajay shah has  implied some problems with the 
: present charter (i dont know if i am reading between lines,
: but his inability to stop, for example anti-saibaba flame
: without any rationale, is understood to be due to deficiency
: of charter as it exists). (Chandra Shekhar Kambhapathi also
: expressed the need for reorg, which for some unknown reasons
: i interpreted as need to modify charter!). I do not know if
: i can interpret Dhruba C and Ken S posts too as supportive of
  *************************          *************************
: this. More over, once a talk group, as in (3) above, is 
: created, he need *not* feel apologetic about *supressing* 
: certain view points, since there is going to be another forum 
: for those voices that do not  satisfy higher standards of srh.
: ("supressing" etc   are *not* ajay shah's words).

1. Do not read to much into somethings. I do not
recollect Dhruba actually supporting re-org. in some
specific sense.

2. The grudge which someone may have (since his post
   got rejected from s.r.h) may still exist, even if
   talk group is created. The reason is that talk 
   groups are not read by many, and so, the author will
   feel bad, of getting a lesser audience. So, frankly
   talk groups in essence do not solve any problem. I
   support the idea however, since I do not see anything
   bad with it.

: (6a) my editrial problem: see after (8) for point (6b)!! no time
:     for corrections..

: (7) What are gains and losses: it might prick the egos, but
: that is what we tend to analyse in a 'compromise'

: (a) Readers of srh -- freedom from personality  flame  wars,
:     more valuble than moksha?

      It already is there. The s.r.h is pretty free
      from flame wars as of now.

: (b) Opponents of RFD:
:   -- Ajay Shah can remain the moderator.
:   -- Ajay Shah can *not* be removed, since a coule of moderators
:      are going to be chosen by him.
        
    When did THAT happen. Perhaps I was not too
    much into the discussion. Also, at present I
    do not think that multiple moderatorship is
    such a good idea. Reason: Low traffic.

:   -- 2 of the 5 moderators plus Ajay Shah are their win.

    See above.

:   -- They can get rid of info group.

    Personally, I have no opinions of info group. So
    no comments.

:   -- They  still have an unmoderated talk group to discuss any
:      future grievances.

: (c) Proponents of RFD
:   -- They still can select 2 moderators
:   -- The charter will be modified to get  a clearer definition of
:      what  will be allowed, and what will not be allowed, and 
:      provisions for good conduct of moderatorship.
     
    If indeed there is a compromise, this IS the most
    imp. aspect. The second no. is about moderators.
    I would like to see a very clear statement from
    the proponents as to what should appear on s.r.h
    and what should not. IMO, any proposal to link
    politics (with a view to depoliticize the group)
    is going to be bad. Reason: Like in all systems,
    politics, is very much mingled with religion. So
    you can talk about Gita, but is has a political
    msg. too. You cannot just wish it off, on the 
    ground of depoliticization. 

    Further, I would like to see CFA which serve
    Hindu interests. For e.g. a call to save a temple
    in UK. I think posts like that merit attention
    in s.r.h. In fact, I have equivalent CFA's on
    other religion groups, which are also moderated.
    A glance at s.r.islam will do just fine.

    However, if some person wants to campaign for
    Congress/BJP/JD etc. then that should not be
    on s.r.h.


:   -- they get multiple moderators.
:   -- they still have an unmoderated talk group to discuss any
:      future grievances.

: (d)  Current moderator Ajay Shah
:  --  Retains moderatorship
:  --  can now choose two more of moderators.
:  --  reduced work load, and increased leisure
:  --  loses a little free-way in moderation.

: (e)  Proposed moderators (selected on to the panel)
:  --  moderatorship

: (f)  Potential moderators to be selected by Ajay Shah
:  -- moderatorship

: (g)  Moderators proposed but not retained:
:  --  dissatisfaction that they are left out.
:  --  some satisfaction, that indirectly they contributed to
:      peaceful srh.

: (h) What i get???
:  -- I lose almost all points!   (test of good compromise is
:     that everyone should feel that way!)

:  -- some  false hope accomplishment!! (just kidding)

: (8) Curiosity questions:

: (a) Do i have authorization from proponents to offer this?
:     NO.
: (b) Did i consult them before writing  this?
:     NO
: (c) Do i have authorization from  opponents of RFD?
:     NO
: (d) Did I consult them before writing this?
:     NO 

: (e) Am I speaking on behalf of any group of individuals or readers?
:     NO. just on behalf of myself!
: (f) Whom should  we be greatful if it gains acceptance?
:     To ourselves. (I will, *however* be greatful to Mani Varadarajan
:     since he spelled the good word 'compromise' first, but you need
:     not!)

: (6b) I remember strong objetion coming from *only* Tiwari N
: (that does not mean it is any less significant) about wording
: of 'political crap' out of the srh. Call-for-action to be out
: is acceptable to him, i guess. Even political articles being
                        *********
Partly NO to your suggestion.

: out is *not*  opposed  by him, but he is not happy with the 

Read above.

: current wording. Any good-linguists can try to word it 
: properly.


: There could be many spelling and grammatical errors, but i am
: posting anyway. if it is horribly bad i might consider later.
: regards
: -- 
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu 
: Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html

--
Nachiketa Tiwari

=====================================================
750 Tall Oaks Drive             118 Patton Hall
Apt. # 3600 I                   Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24060.           Blacksburg, VA 24061.
(540)-951-3979                  (540)-231-4611
=====================================================
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.