[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Peaceful compromise on the Horizon (round and round)
In article <4ebl63$sjp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
>
>I have also said in SEVERAL posts of mine, (being a net-illiterate
>I cannot reproduce them), that the much advocated dis-association
>of religion and politics is NOT feasible. And as far as I recollect,
>I had said pretty much the same in the article, which Gopal has
>re-produced below in parts.
a small clarification
you do not need to reproduce any articles. since i never claimed you
dont have reservations about wording to define "political" articles
for separation; what you have stated earlier was that in the abasence
of clarity you will oppose, since as you rightly argued, the moderator
must be provided guidelines. but, that particular subject was addressed
in my proposal at clause 6b and i did clearly mention that you have
reservations.
one real reason for keeping the para 6b towards the end
is to make sure that if the other segments are acceptable as a
"compromise" (not necessarily as "ideal"), then we all can focus in
rewording referred to in para 6b)
On the other hand, in para 3 of my compromise, i tried to avoid any
controversies, and tried to focus on areas of agreement. but when i
said you are not basically averse to separation of articles such as
muslim-demolition of hindu-temples, you disputed this too.
i hope you will agree with this explanation, once you give a second
look at the paras (3) and (6b).
>: =============================================================
>
>
>: In article <4e15jv$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.
>: [.....]
>
>
>: you did. actually you said even more. you said you will support
>: not only with a vote but with your *writing* skills too.
>: see below.
>
>
>: =====================begin inclusion=========================
>: Re: Why we need the SRH reorganization
>: From: ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu (N. Tiwari)
>: Date: 1995/12/20
>: MessageID: 4b99vm$mqc@solaris.cc.vt.edu
>: newsgroups: news.groups
>
>: Mani Varadarajan (mani@srirangam.esd.sgi.com) wrote:
>
>: : 4. There is a definite need for a newsgroup where topics of
>: : interest to devout Hindus and Indologists can be discussed
>: : in a non-inflammatory manner. Currently, the charter of
>: : soc.religion.hindu discourages such dialogue from taking place.
>
>: : The correct place for inflammatory discussions of
>: : Hindu holocausts, Muslim destruction of ancient temples, etc.,
>: : is in an unmoderated talk.religion.* group, where opposing
>: : viewpoints can be freely aired. Topics related to Hindu dharma,
>: : God, shaastra, and Hindu literature should be discussed in a
>: : non-inflammatory forum such as the proposed
>: : soc.religion.hinduism.moderated newsgroup.
>
>: So, just create a talk.religion.* ng. That solves the purpose.
>: I will support it. With my vote and with my writing skills,
>: whatever little I have.
>
>: Nachiketa Tiwari
>
>: ================end inclusion ============
