[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon
-
From: stars@mcs.com (Joe Bernstein)
-
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 05:20:12 -0600
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: The Stars Our Destination
-
References: <4bdstk$j39@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4df2p5$68r@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dnfba$q3n@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dpf93$mpd@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
In article <4dpf93$mpd@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, my friend
gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana), who came into
this debate as did I from the scij-k debate, and with whom I've not once
agreed on either of those topics, 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?)
followed by a long and very serious compromise proposal on the srh reorg
discussion.
As those who've been around it long enough know, I posted twice re this
reorg early in the discussion and then got out. I was sick of Shrisha
Rao's evasions re scij-k, and when I saw one of the Pai's doing the same
re srh I decided I could only handle one such dispute at a time. However,
I have read some posts since then, if only by accident, and they included
extensive quotes most of the time, so I'd guess I've seen perhaps 5% of
the total discussion, maybe even 10%.
On that very limited sample, the major arguments I've noticed from
opponents of the reorg have been: 1) it's a bad idea because it's
motivated by vengeance; 2) it's a bad idea because it isn't necessary, srh
is quite new and should be given time; 3) it's a bad idea because Ajay
Shah should not be thrown out.
Gopal's proposal answers 3) conclusively, since there would no longer be a
majority of moderators named by the current reorg proponents. It asks
people to rise above 1), which is a sound request, given that the
proponents' personalities (however little I like at least one of them!)
are ultimately irrelevant to the success of the resulting newsgroup. It
does not, of course, answer 2) and I can't speak to that, not being an srh
reader.
However, for anyone who does think srh could use improvement, Gopal's
proposal is about as well-thought-out as something can get. Even if he's
misattributed occasional positions -- and in the interest of getting a
compromise, Gopal, you'd be well off to let people say you've
misrepresented them, rather than argue with that -- the fact remains that
he's laid out a structure in which everyone gets some of what they want,
and in which the most basic benefit the reorg claimed to offer -- a better
moderation policy overseen by more moderators -- is provided primarily via
the existing moderator's decisions. So as compromises go, this one is
superb. Whether a compromise is needed, is of course up to the
participants in the debate.
I don't propose to become such a participant again. I'm certainly not
going to become the "parent" referred to, and in fact am disqualified (per
Gopal's job description) by my fervent loathing for the BJP. I'm only
saying that, from an interested outsider's point of view, this is a REAL
compromise proposal, and people serious about compromises should start
discussing it, rather than talking either about the existing RFD or about
doing nothing. (For starters, this would imply that Mani V. should
express willingness to withdraw or seriously change the RFD. He, at
least, has posted an interest in compromise; I'm not sure about the other
proponents.)
For what my opinions are worth. At least it's quite nice finally to end
up agreeing with Gopal about something.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, free-lance writer, bank clerk and bookstore worker
speaking for himself and nobody else joe@sfbooks.com
