[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
SRH Reorg: No Personal Vendetta : Inconclusive "Proof"!
I am once again not surprised that this discussion about the SRH
reorg proposal revolves not around the proposal itself, but some
sort of sinister "conspiracy theory" which some people claim is
at its heart.
I've asked several times that the discussion focus on the RFD
itself, but it seems that many of the people opposing this RFD
would like to divert attention away from the RFD. Even this latest
bit of "conclusive proof" tries to do just that, but I am glad
that Ajay included the entire text of the original article at
the end of his message, because that text shows that this "smoking
gun" isn't what he paints it as.
It should not be surprising to anyone who has followed this thread
that one of the goals of the RFD is to make the moderators "mere
mortals" - in other words, the moderators are the peers, not the
overlords, of the readers of this group. This is why the reorg RFD
has specific statements about what moderators can and cannot do. It
is designed to limit the power of the moderators, and to prevent the
moderators from abusing their positions.
I guess one of the "philosophical" issues regarding this RFD is what
one thinks of the role of the moderator. In the reorg RFD, it is
clear that the moderator acts as a facilitator, but is in no way a
"leader" or a "speaker" for the Hindus on the net. I personally think
it would be somewhat hard to designate some individual as the
"representative" for all of the Hindus on the net, and I think that
the RFD ensures that no moderator attempt to pass himself/herself
off as such, or give the impression that he/she speaks for anyone
but himself/herself.
In an earlier post, Rajiv Varma made the comment "You cannot have
a panchayat be the speaker of the House. Ajay Shah is just fine."
That statement disturbs me for the very reason that I do not see
the moderator as a "speaker" of any sort. I don't want a single
"ruler", I don't want a 5-person panchayat "speaking" for the
Hindus, and I don't want some sort of totalitarian, authoritarian
connotation built into the position of moderator.
In rough terms, there are probably 700 million Hindus in the world.
A tiny fraction of those use the net, and most that do are probably
college-age and located in America. It is absurd to me to suggest
that the person moderating these discussions is the "speaker of the
house". I don't recall anyone granting anyone the power to speak for
the other 699+ million Hindus out there.
In simple terms, the reorg RFD makes several people moderators, and
the offer to have Ajay included as one still stands. If someone wanted
an RFD to designate someone as the "voice of the Hindus", then this
RFD isn't it, and I don't think I want to be put in the position of
deciding who is "speaking for the Hindus". I would much rather we be
allowed to speak for ourselves. The net is controlled anarchy, and I
don't see anything inherently wrong with that. Designating a person a
moderator of a newsgroup limits the anarchy, but I would contend it is
for the better. However, I want to make sure that when I give up some
of my "rights", I know what I'm getting into, and the reorg RFD does
just that.
If you want to read it for yourself, and see what I'm talking about,
it can be found in many places, including
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh.html
Now, regarding the latest "conclusive proof":
In article <4cdess$dln@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:
|> Dear Friends,
|>
|> Saprem Namaskar!
|>
|> While many people have posted similar posts, here is the original post
|> that started the re-organization effort from DejaNews. 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.
This is a blatant lie - what was at issue was not what beliefs Ajay
held, but his unethical campaigning during the _CFV_ stage of SRV. In
the process of creating a newsgroup, there are two stages, where the
first is for discussion, and the second is for voting. As far as I
remember, Ajay did not say a single word publicly during the stage
where discussion was encouraged, but he waited until the CFV stage
before trying to stop the newsgroup. What's more, he used his SRH
moderator's accounts to send out his messages against SRV, and he
signed his notes indicating his position as moderator of SRH. All of
this, once again, took place in the stage where campaigning is _not_
allowed. What's worse, Jai Maharaj sent e-mail to a large number of
people encouraging them to vote against SRV, and in his e-mail, Jai
indicated that this was sanctioned by Ajay. When asked to publically
refute this statement, Ajay did not (to the best of my knowledge), and
Jai kept repeating the claim over and over.
Now, if you compare the statement Ajay excerpts from Shrisha's post
with Shrisha's post in its entirety, what Shrisha was saying sounds
quite a bit different from what Ajay claims it was saying.
More recently, some of us have been trying to reach a compromise on
this proposal. I personally had been replying to some of the things
which Dr. Raj Bhatnagar wrote, and I felt that progress was being
made. Mani Varadarajan even wrote something specifically discussing a
compromise plan, but to my knowledge, Ajay has not acted on either of
these discussions. The claims of "personal vendetta" and "petty
politics" are groundless, in my opinion. I, and I think that all of
the proponents, have worked to make sure that Ajay was included in
this reorg RFD. However, if he chooses to not participate, there's not
much that I can do. The offer to have Ajay join as a moderator is
still open. There are obviously some deficiencies with the current
setup of SRH, and Ajay has even spoken about the unavailability of his
hardware, etc. I wish that the positive points of this proposal would
receive some attention, since there does seem to be a need for some
modification to SRH.
|> Please note that I did not object to SRV's need, or its charter or its
|> moderation policies. I also congratulated the proponents upon its
|> passage.
|>
|> Please read this post and make up your own mind about the petty
|> politics involved in the re-organization move, or should I say, a
|> move to destroy Soc.Religion.Hindu?
from the FAQ:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
"I.2 Will this destroy soc.religion.hindu?
In short, no. It will replace soc.religion.hindu with three groups:
unmoderated group talk.religion.hindu
moderated group soc.religion.hindu.moderated (renames soc.religion.hindu)
moderated group soc.religion.hindu.info"
|> Here is a paragraph that will clearly show the intention of the
|> proponents of
|> SRH re-org.
|> -------excerpt from an earlier post from one of the re-org proponents----
|>
|> 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
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ----------------------------------------
|> (emphasis underline added)
|>
|> Please note:
|> 1. Proponents of SRV considered this re-org not out of the good
|> of SRH, but as a revange for my stand.
What Ajay fails to underline is "if Dr. Maharaj and Mr. Shah manage
to stop SRV using their fraudulent practices..."
If we are to take Ajay's comment here as fact, then we are faced with
an interesting dilemma, since the latter statement is conditional,
based on SRV failing. However, since SRV succeeded, the "smoking gun"
is once again not quite what some people make it out to be.
|> 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.
This is where the "fraudulent practices" bit comes in - the SRV
issue saw a moderator abusing his official title and moderator's
account in order to campaign against a newsgroup during the _CFV_.
The implication was clear - SRH was being used as a political tool
to try to interfere with things not related to SRH, and it was
being used at the whim of a single individual.
Was there ever a referendum on SRH about what its readership felt
about SRV? If not, then what gave a single individual the power to
attempt to speak for all of SRH? That's the point that is somehow
missing from all of these conspiracy theories.
|> 3. The proponents have failed to provide a single example of posting
|> that was unfairly rejected from Soc.Religion.Hindu
Nice try, but the statement is sneaky - the Shiva Purana post was
rejected, of course, from alt.hindu while you were still the
moderator, and while it had guidelines identical to SRH.
|> I am sad to see this petty political play from those who objected
|> to the word Hindu in a Vaishnava newsgroup, and now seek to
|> destroy and/or control the Hindu newsgroup.
Again, from the FAQ:
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
"II.3 Who are the proponents, and what do they do?
The proponents are the ones responsible for the administrative details
concerning the RFD _only_. They are the ones responsible for writing
the RFD, contacting moderators, etc., but they will have no say in the
newsgroup once it is created. In some sense, the proponents are like
the "sponsors" of the RFD - they handle administrative issues _only_
regarding the RFD. Once the newsgroup is created, the role of the
proponents is over."
and
"IV.2 What about the claim that this is an attempt to control the
content of SRH?
This is totally without merit. Ajay Shah, the current moderator of
soc.religion.hindu, was contacted about being a moderator for the
proposed groups. He declined. Had this been an attempt to control SRH
in some manner, does it make sense that Ajay would have been asked to
be moderator? This offer was made through several channels, including
publicly on news.groups, directly to Ajay, and also indirectly through
Ajay's friend, Vijay Pallod. There was no attempt to oust Ajay."
-Vivek
|> As I see a post from a 16 year old from UK, asking for Hindu unity
|> to support ISKCON temple in UK, I am reminded that my post expressing
|> my personal opinion regarding the name Hindu in Vaishnava newsgroup
|> was indeed prompted by the same incident. Perhaps, we can all
|> learn from this short message and seek strength in Hindu unity.
|>
|> regards,
|>
|> ajay shah
|> ------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
|> >
|>
Follow-Ups:
