[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: Personal Vendetta : Conclusive Proof!
On 3 Jan 1996 08:31:24 GMT, Ajay Shah wrote in soc.religion.hindu:
>While many people have posted similar posts, here is the original post
>that started the re-organization effort from DejaNews.
Actually, careful reading of the entire post shows that the
re-organization predates the srv controversy, if one follows the
english grammar closely.
> It is
>conclusive proof that the SRH re-organization move is based on
>personal vendetta and petty politics, solely because of my personal
>belief that the word Hindu be included in the name of the newsgroup
>Soc.Religion.Vaishnava.
No, it shows clearly just the opposite -- that the writer of the Deja
News post felt that some were using dubious practices contrary to
netiquette to try to get a vote against SRV, and that the already
existing reorganization proposal would then get more impetus.
>Please read this post and make up your own mind about the petty
>politics involved in the re-organization move
I am not a Vaishnava per se, and certainly not a progressive, and all
the evidence I have seen to date indicates that the petty politics and
paranoia are all on the side of those opposed to the reorganization.
This paranoia is clearly shown by the fact that the actual words of
this DejaNews post that has been displayed here, says just the
opposite of what it has been portrayed to indicate.
>Please note:
>1. Proponents of SRV considered this re-org not out of the good
>of SRH, but as a revange for my stand.
Since the grammar shows that the reorganization existed prior to this
discussion of the SRV opposition, then it has (ironically) been
clearly demonstrated that revenge was not an issue.
>2. They consider SRH to be home territory of some people, however
>any one who has read SRH will, I am certain, disagree with this
>contention, as I have never sought to dominate this newsgroup with
>my ideas or articles.
Maybe, but the post indicates that the writer thought that the SRH
moderator has an influence greater than the average person, clearly
this influence was thought to come from being the only moderator.
It is widely considered to be more reasonable to put decision making
power in the hands of more than one person, except for those cases
where it is more efficient to use just one person. In the case of
SRH, it is more efficient to use more than one person.
>------entire post by one of the proponents of SRH re-org from DejaNews------
>
>
><HTML>
><HEAD>
><TITLE>DejaNews Document 49596.15924.:dnserver.db95q4:2379497</TITLE>
></HEAD>
><A HREF="newspost:news.groups"><IMG ALT="Post" BORDER=0 SRC="internal-news-post"></A>
><A HREF="mailto:shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu"><IMG ALT="Reply" BORDER=0 SRC="internal-news-reply"></A>
><HR>
><H2><A HREF="nph-dnquery?search=thread+RECNUM=%3c481hm4$el2@news4.digex.net%3e%231/1">Re: Fishy E-Mail: vote against soc.religion.vaishnava</A></H2>
><H3>
>From: <A HREF="dnauthor-profile.tcl?author=shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu%20(Shrisha%20Rao)">shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Shrisha Rao)</A>
><BR>
>Date: 1995/11/11</H3>
>MessageID: 481hm4$el2@news4.digex.net#1/1<BR>
><HR>
><BODY>
><PRE>
>distribution: world
>references: <YkcZV9200iISFPpqVE@andrew.cmu.edu> <47trej$2js@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> <1995Nov10.220525.5621@news.ntrs.com>
>x-approved: HGroover@Qualitas.com (Usenet Auto-moderator)
>followup-to: news.groups
>content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
>x-url: <A HREF="http://www.interlog.com/~jacekb/dvaita.html">http://www.interlog.com/~jacekb/dvaita.html</A>
>mime-version: 1.0
>newsgroups: news.groups
>
>In article <1995Nov10.220525.5621@news.ntrs.com>, spb@ntrs.com (Steve
>Bonine) wrote:
>
>[*chomp*]
>
>> Jai's email spam urging votes agains soc.culture.hawaii resulted in
>> a number of YES votes for the group. I suspect that the same thing
>> will happen this time.
>
>I don't doubt that for an instant; there are always a few people who
>like to do their own thinking, and who will not tolerate being told
>what to do. However, what is worrying is that there is a 2:1 majority
>requirement for passage, which means that unless two out of every
>three spam victims decide to vote yes, the group is in danger. That
>means that Dr. Maharaj and Mr. Shah could have a success rate of, say,
>only around 40-50%, and still manage to derail the group.
>
>Anyhow, if that happens, I'm sure the move to reorganize the
>soc.religion.hindu.* hierarchy will gain much impetus; there is
>already a groundswell of support which will not be easily denied, and
>if Dr. Maharaj and Mr. Shah manage to stop SRV using their fraudulent
>practices, then they will face a tidal wave of opposition that will
>uproot them from their home territory. Then, the next time the SRV
>proposal is made in six months' time, the circumstances will be
>sufficiently different to allow a fair vote.
>
>Regards,
>
>Shrisha Rao
>
>>
>> --
>> Steve Bonine
>> spb@ntrs.com
>>
Namaskar,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
