[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Yet another FAQ (the "Real FAQ")
In article <4cr819$e2f@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cq47d$7r3@larry.rice.edu>,
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>A list of questions and topics regarding SRH was mailed to me, so I
>>thought I'd take the opportunity to address some of the questions
>>asked. Since my FAQ was disparagingly called the "FA(ke)Q" by Ajay, I
>>guess one should assume that these questions are the "Real FAQ"... ;-)
>[...]
>>|> 4. Is SRH democratically run newsgroup?
>>
>>Yes and no - there is only one moderator, and he is the final
>>authority in all matters. There are no provisions for appealing the
>>decision of the moderator, so in that sense, there's no democracy.
>
>Now Pai is using words like `democrcy' to muster support for the
>reorganization.
You'll note that the phrase did not originate with me at all, but with
various "administrativia" messages which appeared on SRH. Therefore,
it would seem that words like "democrcy" are being used to defend the
status quo.
>There would still be no democracy in the reorganized SRH, as there is
>no mechanism for periodic approvals of the moderators, for recall
>mechanisms etc. At best, it would only be an oligarchy.
The important word, then, is "still", so what you must admit, is that
while the reorg RFD isn't "perfect", by your standards, I assume, it
is a significant improvement, especially in that the multiple
moderators would be available for "reviewing" rejected posts, etc.
>[...]
>>|> 9. What has been the stand of the proponents of SRH Re-organization
>>about the word Hindu?
>>
>>All of them use the word Hindu very often. It's a good word, and it's
>>become part of the English language all over the world. Most of the
>>proponents publically state that they are Hindu.
>
>They have also claimed that Hinduism is not a religion, that `Hindu' is
>an ethnic designation. One of them even supported the claim that physical
>features partly determine whether one is Hindu or not.
Let me put aside your statement for a moment in order to point out
what other people have to say on the matter. If one goes to
http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/soc_hindu_home.html you
will find the title "Soc.Religion.Hindu Newsgroup", and then
underneath it, it says, "sponsored by Global Hindu Electronic Networks
(project of HSC)," so let's examine what the HSC says about Hinduism:
I went to an HSC meeting recently, and I was handed a pamphlet, which
states:
"Who is a Hindu? The word Hindu embraces
* all the people who believe in, practice and respect or follow the eternal
values of life, ethical and spiritual, that originated in the historical
land of the Hindus (Indian subcontinent).
* all those who live outside of Bharat, but follow Hindu dharma
=> Hindu Dharma includes Buddha, Jain, Sikh, Vaishnav, etc. al. Dharmas.
This system is compromised of many philosophies, religions, and values.
It is a cultural ethos"
So, given that HSC sponsors the SRH newsgroup, and given that the
above is the operational definition given by the HSC, what exactly is
the objection you had? I don't think anyone denied the religious
aspect of Hinduism, which you seem to imply, but take a good look at
that last line from the pamphlet and see if that doesn't sound a lot
like what various people said.
>[...]
>>|> 17. Are Call For Actions etc. would be disallowed in SRH, can you
>>tell use why Are they allowed in SRV?
>>
>>SRV doesn't check for the presence of keywords to disallow any post.
>>Posts are never rejected because of content - only because of the lack
>>of keywords. The keywords list is publically available, and has not
>>changed significantly (if at all) since the beginning of the
>>newsgroup.
>
>[I assume that the `Are' in the question is a typo for `As' and that the
>first line for the answer should have been something like `SRV only checks
>for the presence of (one or more of) the keywords (and that the article
>is not being cross-posted).]
Probably so (about the typo) - I didn't bother editing the
questions. Only the replies are mine.
>I thought that `Calls for Action' that are revelent to Hindus would still
>be allowed. I remember Mani Varadarajan saying that Calls for Action to
>counter real and imminent religious discrimination against Hindus would be
>allowed. [I would assume that the original post would go to the .info group.]
My answer focused on the charge that SRV should ban certain types of
posts, not on what is and isn't allowed on SRH. As you've noted, the
question makes incorrect assumptions and works from there, but that
isn't anything new - a similar question appeared on SRH recently,
trying to defend the status quo. As you've pointed out, SRV's checks
are fairly simple. Banning calls for action from SRV using the
robo-moderation software would be impossible, simply because such
software doesn't exist.
>If this is wrong, the reorganization should be voted down as it denies
>the use of Usenet to Hindus to counter discrimination.
You state that Mani has indicated something to the contrary, and I
believe that I have as well. Ajay specifically mentioned two incidents
on SRH, the Fiji temple and the ISKCON temple, and seemed to indicate
that those would be banned under the reorg RFD, but as my answer
indicated, he had only given a heavily edited section of the RFD as
his basis, and the next statement itself (of the RFD) would've shown
that those posts would be allowed. Therefore, you need not worry about
what you've mentioned above.
>>|> 19. Where was the SRH Re-organization proposal posted, and where it
>>wasn't?
>>
>>The posting was sent to a variety of groups, including
>>soc.culture.indian, alt.india.progressive, and soc.religion.hindu. The
>>various groups represent a wide cross-section of Hindu thought, and
>>they were chosen to try to include as many different types of people
>>as possible. Not all of the SCI* groups were included, because the
>>message can only be sent to a number of groups such that the total
>>number of characters in the "Newsgroups:" line is less than 200.
>
>alt.india.progressive is hardly relevant to Hinduism, unless the
>proponents hold that `Hindu' is an ethnic term.
Note that I don't speak for all the proponents, just myself. However,
if you claim that aip is irrelevant, then why would your same logic
not apply to soc.culture.indian? After all, you could make a similar
claim, since your statement above seems to imply that the only
connection AIP would have is from the term "Indian". However, religion
is discussed on both groups, so it makes sense to include both groups,
especially since it seems diverse viewpoints are represented.
>Note also that the RFD was sent to the Indology mailing list and to the
>Indo-European mailing list (I don't think that it appeared in the latter,
>as they moved to a `members only' policy late last year), but >not< to
>the Sanskrit mailing list.
I personally thought that the Sanksrit list had disbanded. However,
given that the RFD is _not_ the voting mechanism, and given that the
RFD told people where to look for the discussion, I am still not clear
on why the omission of the Sanksrit list is somehow "evidence" against
the reorg RFD.
>>>|> 20. Was Ajay Shah "offered" a moderators position during
>>re-organization RFD preparation period and did he decline? Why?
>>
>>He was offered a position, and he declined, but the offer still
>>stands.
>
>If he was offered to chance to select two co-moderators, with the proponents
>selecting two more, I would be more impressed with this.
Back when Raj Bhatnagar seemed willing to compromise, I specifically
asked him to try to get Ajay to name two other people, as Raj had
suggested. Neither Raj nor Ajay responded with names. Since then, I
haven't seen Raj post, and when I asked Ajay a series of simple
questions on SRH, he removed all of the questions in his reply. You'll
note that I've answered every point you've raised here. Can you say
the same of Ajay wrt to my questions?
I personally would prefer to reach a compromise solution rather than
going for a full CFV. However, if Ajay is even unwilling to recognize
the possibility of a compromise solution, then there's not much that I
can do.
-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Jan 8 10:27:05 CST 1996)
Follow-Ups:
