[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: Personal Vendetta : Conclusive "Proof"!
In the article <4ciih8$lu1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
of 5 Jan 1996 07:04:08 UTC,
Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
> [...]
> Simple, because the proponents of SRH re-org who were among the
> most vocal supporters of SRV creation want to maintain their
> strong hold on SRV, but destroy/control SRH.
> [...]
Quite so. Not only that but after SRV (that is,
soc.religion.vaishnava) was illegally created by using a
non-independent vote-taker, Shrisha Rao and/or V. S. Pai issued a
"rmgroup" (remove group) control message to delete the newsgroup
alt.religion.vaisnava from those sites which automatically honor
"rmgroup" control messages. Fortunately, numerous sites do not
honor "rmgroup" messages. Please note that if ARV has been removed
from your site, please send a request to your system administrator
to offer it once again!
Jai Maharaj <jai@mantra.com> *-=Om Shanti=-*
%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%:%
The above is a follow-up to the following exchange:
> Namaskar,
> On Thu, 4 Jan 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>
>> Many times, people have claimed that this reorg was an attempt
>> to "destroy" SRH because its current moderator expressed an
>> opinion. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that's
>> why my last
>
> Not just claimed, but presented ample evidence as well! As
> evident by these posts, it is indeed a political move. Now, one
> may put any spin on it, but the fact remains.
>
>> The reorg RFD will not only expand SRH, but it will make it
>> more responsive and a more enjoyable place. The hate and the
>> pure politics will vanish from SRH.moderated, and hopefully,
>> more religious
>
> There is no hate and pure politics. Neither is there any
> moderatin bias. After all, the proponents of SRH re-org have
> failed to provide a single post that has been unfairly rejected
> from soc.religion.hindu. Leading most of the readers, I am
> certain, to conclude that the re-org move is nothing but a
> personal vendetta. A warning to all those who wish to express
> their personal opinion regarding Hindu unity.
>
>>
>> In article <4cgeub$k5a@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>> Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai wrote:
>>>
>> They aren't double standards, and your sentence indicates why
>> -- these people maintain the hardware and software of the
>> moderation robot. They are "mere mortals" by definition - they
>> have to follow the
>> -Vivek
>
> What are the provisions in SRV charter for replacing the
> hardware and software maintainers? None.
>
> What are the provisions in SRV charter for multiple
> machine/multiple site moderation? None.
>
> What are the provisions in SRV charter for replacing the
> programmer (who is effectively a moderator)? None.
>
> What is the provision in SRV charter for removing
> call-for-action? None.
>
> What if the SRV host machine has problems on a given day, due to
> upgrade schedules or a breakdown? Why aren't there multiple
> sites hosting SRV?
>
> All this seems like clear double standard to me. And I am sure
> to many others observing this debate. So why these moderation
> policy double standards?
>
> Simple, because the proponents of SRH re-org who were among the
> most vocal supporters of SRV creation want to maintain their
> strong hold on SRV, but destroy/control SRH.
>
>> You posted messages from your SRH accounts, and you noted you
>> position as SRH moderator in the messages. Why didn't you list
>> your employer,
>> -Vivek
>
> Please check once again, the main post did appear from
> ajay@mercury account. I can use any account at my disposal for
> expressing my personal opinion.
>
>>
>> Well, at least now you're no longer claiming that this whole
>> issue revolves around just your personal opposition. The rules
>> for the
>> -Vivek
>
> It most certainly does. Vivekji, as I mentioned earlier, I
> appreciate your initiative in speaking for me, but please allow
> me to speak for myself. So once again, let me emphasize, the
> SRH re-org RFD evolves out of petty politics and personal
> vendetta, simply and solely because I insisted on the word Hindu
> in the Vaishnava newsgroup name.
>
>> behavior of a moderator should be clear, and that's what the
>> reorg RFD attempts to do. So, now, let's move on and if you
>> have any comments about it, please make them.
>> -Vivek
>
> So, as one of the proponents of SRV, what rrestrictions have you
> placed on the behavior of the software writer, maintainer,
> hardware maintainer? None! right? Sounds like double standards
> to me!
>
>> an attempt by some Vaisnavas to attack a Hindu newsgroup, I
>> wanted to clear the air. It definitely is not an attack on a
>> Hindu newsgroup,
>> -Vivek
>
> I never said that this is an attack by some Vaishnavas to attack
> the Hindu newsgroup. I said that it is an attempt by some of
> the proponents and supporters of the SRV to destroy/control the
> Hindu newsgroup. Let us please not turn this one into a
> Vaishnava/Non-Vaishnava fight. That is very detrimental to
> Hindu unity. in the words of Narashima Mehta, a 16 th. century
> Gurajarti poet,
>
> Vaishnava Jana To Tene Re Kahiye Je pida parayi Jane Re!
> One who knows the sufferings of a fellow human being is a
> Vaishnava. Many of us who insisted on the word Hindu in
> Vaishnava newsgroup do not wish to disown our Vaishnava beliefs
> and Vaishnava heritage.
> regards,
> ajay
