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

Re: Towards a peaceful compromise (why a better charter is needed?)

GOPAL  Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
: In article <4dks0h$kfp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
: N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
: >Ken Stuart (kstuart@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: [...]
: >: (The post didn't ask what people's opinions are - it started out with
: >: the assumption that he is a fraud.)
: >
: >: Note that I am NOT a follower of Sai Baba, just someone who respects
: >: his work, such as building schools and hospitals in India that are
: >: available free of charge, etc.
: >


: >In a sense, I agree with Ken here. 
: >But then, it is also a responsibility of
: >our readers (of s.r.h) that we know what we are writing. The moderators
: >can only exert there influence up to a limit. Beyond that limit, it
: >is all up to us. 

: [...]
: >: Well, I think that the immediate response to my version of moderation
: >: will be something about freedom of speech, etc.    If there is an
: >: unmoderated talk.religion.hindu, then all the dissidents and
: >: hate-mongers will have a forum [ not that they don't already use
: >: soc.culture.indian :-) ], so they won't have any reason to complain
: >: when their posts are rejected by the moderator of SRH.
: >
: >I am not averse to the proposed talk group. However, the reason
: >that such a group will exist, DOES NOT imply that any articles
: >rejected on the aforementioned ground, will not generate criticism.

:  criticism will always be there; even the poster who posted the anti-
:  saibaba article *against* which you  expressed your views,  would have been 
:  unhappy and criticised  the moderator if the post was *rejected*. The
:  point Ken S points out is that he will not have a *reason* to 
:  criticise. and moderator will have to have the authority of the charter 
:  *even* to, -- what  you described as --, "exert influence". in the
:  absence of such provisions in a charter, a moderator can *not* exert
:  such influence without facing the accusation of 'ultra vires' actions.

:  And that is why a charter is needed in the first place for any moderated
:  group.

But what happens, if I want to criticize a person/sect
on the grounds that they are hypocritical. May be I 
sincerely believe in it. May be the folks I criticize
ARE actually hypocrites, and I want to expose that
thing. It is not that such criticisms have not existed
among the Hindus. We see such instances in Raamaayana
and the Mahaabhaarata. We see it in other Hindu lit.

Believe me or not, there are several people who actually
think (and think that they are right) that Sai Baba
is a hypocrite. Not that I agree with them. But that
belief is there. Then there are many, who have similar
views about the ISKCON. And I can continue with this 
list. How can we judge, (esp. in view of our limited
knowledge and expertise) that which post should be
permitted and which should not.

Some netter posted an article that we do not need so
many temples in India. He also claimed that most of
the pujaris are hypocrites. Not that I agree with him,
but should that mean that we go around rejecting such
articles. 

Are we proposing that you have the right to post your
opinions, as long as we agree with you. 

Believe me, it IS the collective responsibility of
us, the s.r.h folks, to 'control' the nature of posts.
The moderators, (with all their wisdom) cannot do
that. If you and I see that a particular post was
tasteless, then we should voice our opinions against
it. And it DOES has an effect. Esp. in moderated ngs.

--
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.