[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (Where is the compromise!)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (Where is the compromise!)
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:10:39 -0500
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
-
References: <4bdstk$j39@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dpf93$mpd@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e15jv$lj9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
In article <4e15jv$lj9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>: (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.
[.....]
>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.
====================================================
What is your concept of compromise?
When Mani V made a compromise proposal you asked:
"where is the compromise?"
now see where the compromise is from the proponents
(i mean, if the proposal meets approval from everyone)
(1) ajay shah can join as moderator (a conceding point
w.r.t. RFD. (2) second *moderated* info group is dropped
(3) even an unmoderated info group opposed by Jai M is
is not envisaged (4) 2 of the moderators can now be picked
up by ajay shah, so arun malik's apprehension that ajay might
be removed by the other moderators is set to rest
What you need to concede are (1) separation of articles
based on the focus of the articles. if the focus of article
is about hindu dharma, sastras, spiritualism etc they go
to srh, else to talk group. (2) multiple moderators.
please remember that you had supported the idea of multiple
moderators as well as separation of articles, earlier,
after a prolonged discussion.
Now explain "where is the compromise?"
G.Sree Ramana Gopal
