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

Re: There is a need to be careful here Re: Religious unity

GOPAL  Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:

: Can  I say about the opponents (that they too answered all questions)? 
: There were several questions  left unanswered.  either snip all the 
: questions, and write about srv debates, or collectively for a dozen 
: questions, give a line of answer, (like "the entire article confuses 
: me" or " i say there is no need for reorg" or  "it is good politics" 
: or " you five star  vaishnavas leave srh for us" or "these vishnavas 
: are out there to construct their babri maszid on srh janmasthan" 
: The only sin they committed is to argue against a particular definiton

The statements and phrases in quotes are down right silly and are not
worth answering. But this is precisely the point - the debate has
degenerated. If the proponents of the RDF stayed clear of these issues
(that is not provide an opportunity for re-rebuttals) then the whole
issue would have been closed. But the fact is that they did it plenty of
times and the fact that the whole discussion has centered around one
personality's likes and dislikes and whether he should agree to to
something or not is the problem. It makes one conclude that SRH has been
come to be seen as a personal fiefdom of some people(by the propenents
of the re-org move) - which is not the case and SHOULD NOT
BE THE CASE. So whether that individual agrees to it or not - the RFD
should be converted into a proper proposal and a CFV issued. That there
have been hints at BACK ROOM DEALS has made this whole issue of re-rog
suspect.
 
Let state very clearly - I am not an opponent of the re-org move. HAving
stated the position -

: you want me to list some questions that remain unanswered by oppoents
: to the RFD? 
: some example:
: (1) Is there  anything inherently wrong for the RFD proponents to
: propose moderators within RFD? is it not done routinly?

There is nothing wrong in naming MODERATORS in the RDF and the documents
- as long as there is (a) it is undertood that these moderators will
remain after the formation of the groups till such time that there is an
election (that would eliminate the accusations being flung in all
directions, (b) That the moderators can be asked to step down (as
opposed to removed) by a popular mandate (if there is one). I am sure
this point was discussed before ad has been discussed when various
newsgroups were being formed.

: (2) is ajay shah *against* the concept of separation of political
: crap out of srh?

This si a problem with and for A. Shah to deal with. The Charter of SRH
can be modified  to ensure that this doesnot take place - again if there
is a popular mandate for such a measure. Again of the moderators are as
in (1) then thy have no choice but to heed popular demand.

: (3) is ajay shah against the concept of multiple moderators?


LET ME ASK A COUNTER QUESTION - (I am sick to death of seeing A. Shah
this and A. Shah that). WHO IS A. SHAH? HE IS AFTERALL ONLY A MODERATOR
OF A NEWSGROUP. AS SUCH HIS EXISTENCE IN THAT POSITION IS AND SHOULD BE
SUBKJECT TO THE PEOPLE INVOLVED WITH THIS NEWSGROUP. IF PEOPLE WANT
MULTIPLE MODERATORS SO BE IT - A. SHAH IS ONE OF THE MANY EQUALS ON THE
NET. HE IS NO MORE AND NO LESS THAN THE OTHERS.

: (4) does he have any speific objections against any of the proposed
: moderators?

IF HAS NOT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS - IGNORE HIM AND CALL FOR A CFV AND
GO THE READERS/CONTRIBUTORS OF THIS NEWSGROUP. HE IS ONE PERSON AND AS
SUCH DOESNOT COUNT.

: (5) if he has, has he any recommendations?
: (6) is he against laying out a clearly spelt out charter for 
: acceptance or rejection of articles?
: (7) does he believe that taking the four proposed moderators
: amounts taking control of srh by the proponents?
: (8) is he prepared to accept  moderatorship

WHY ARE ARE ALL QQUESTION DEVOTED TO A. SHAH only. COME ON PEOPLE IF YOU
DO NOT WANT THE ACCUSATION OF WITCH HUNTS HURLED AT YOU - THEN GET RID
OF HIM FROM YOUR SYSTEMS - YOU GUYS ARE REALLY PARANOID ABOUT HIS
POWERS.


: What attempt has been made by the other side?

: Some one asked why we give importance to Ajay Shah, and not to readers.

THAT SOME ONE WAS ME - I DID ASK THAT AND AM ASKING AGAIN IN THIS POST.

: well he might have made a point, but my answer is (1) He is a respected
: (2) He was the force behind creation of  srh (3) None from proponents
: side have any kind of objection to his moderatorship (4) he has experience

GOOD QUALITIES - I AM SURE WE ARE INDEBTED TO HIM (IN SOME WAY OR THE
OTHER) FOR THE FORMATION OF THIS NEWSGROUP. PERIOD. AFTER THAT IF AT
TIME HE OR ANYOTHER PERSON STANDS IN THE WAY OF POPULAR DEMANDS THEN
HE/SHE HAS TO BE IGONRED.

: The confidence reposed in him is unequivocal, otherwise the proponents 
: would *not* have said the offer of moderatorship to him is still open.

WHO ARE THE PROPONENTS TO OFFER MODERATOR SHIPS. DO THEY OWN THIS
NEWSGROUP AND THE ONES BEING FORMED. COME ON - DO NOT INSULT OUR
INTELLIGENCE here.

: But he needs to shed his suspicions and inhibitions, and take the people
: into confidence, spell out what he has in mind.


Ah! THE CRUX OF IT ALL! He is

(oops apologies to all - for the caps - I am not shouting here)

suspicious and doesnot take every one into his confidence.  So this is a
political move - well Ramana (if I could call you that) you have let the
cat out of the bag here. ;-) Just kidding I do understand what you mean.


: if only you added a few suggestions, it would have been ideal.

As I said - I agree with the porposals - (let be clear - I like some, I
intencely dislike some and I feeel some are wooly) - but given the
nature of these newsgroups I know we cannot have a newsgroup which I
would like perfrectly. So lets have the CFV and get on with it.

Analysis etc are already available in bucketfuls and I need not add some
more - I agree with most of the proposals - my only grouse is ....lets
not get into that

-Chandrasekhar
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.