[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: Personal Vendetta : Conclusive "Proof"!
In article <4cgco4$jam@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>
>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.
>
The gentleman's so called "philosophical" view is obtuse at best.
There is a vast difference between the speaker and the leader.
I request the gentleman to focus on the meanings of the word "facilitator"
and "moderator"/"speaker".
For example, if someone posts an article related to "pornography in the
playboy magazine" (nothing to do with Hinduism). Alright. What do you
need to do to screen this out of a ng like SRH. A mere facilitator? No!
Facilitators don't use their judgement, they only facilitate.
Facilitation does not require intelligence, IMHO, moderation does.
So, you need a "moderator" or a "speaker"!
IMHO, ng moderators are "speakers" who keep the discussion relevant.
I bet Shivraj Patil is not merely a facilitator of the Lok Sabha. Instead
he is the moderator or the "speaker". he belongs to the Congress Party.
Right? But that does not mean he won't allow Atal Behari Vajpayee (floor
leader of BJP) or Somnath Chatterjee (leader, CPM) to oppose Narsimha Rao
(leader of his own Party).
>
>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."
>
Yes, I hold that you cannot have a Panchayat, regardless of the
qualifications of the Panchs, moderating SRH!
Lok Sabha is not moderated by a panchayat!
>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.
>
Sheer sensationalism by the honorable gentleman!
Ajay Shah allowed Sri Partha Banerjee's obtuse thesis that BJP-RSS-VHP
was responsible for the Dowry problem. Didn't he?
Where is this "dictator"? Where is this "leader"?
A "speaker" or a "moderator" is not a "dictator" or a "leader"!
>
>In rough terms, there are probably 700 million Hindus in the world.
>
Really .... Even after deducting the Five-star Vaishnavas? Sir?
>
>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.
>
Shivraj Patil does not _speak_ for the Congress Party, neither for BJP nor
for CPM, neither for Janata Dal nor for the Akalis. He moderates! He does
not speak for the 900 million Indians either. President of the U.N.
General Assembly does not speak for all the world nations.
I request the honorable gentlemen to get their terminology right.
>
>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
>
Nobody speaks for the Hindus, Sir. Not Ajay Shah. Not you. Neither Shrisha
Rao. Nor Mani Vardarajan ji. Ajay Shah moderates, and we all (including
non-Hindus, five-star vaishnavas, .... mongrels, et al. and as well as Sri
Partha Banerjee) SPEAK!
>
>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.
>
Have any of your legitimate posts been rejected by Ajay Shah? or anyone else?
>
>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":
>
>
>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.
>
But you did indicate that you might post a RFD: SRH reorg as a revenge.
Let's get this straight. shall we? Even if you mean good, it cannot be
done in retaliation. Mahatma Gandhi taught us "end never justifies the
means, it the means which determine what the end will be".
Don't tell me now, five-star vaishnavas cannot heed Mahatma's advice?
>
>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.
>
This is an old tactic. Hindus always fall for this (looking at their
history). Enemies of Hindus threaten to annihilate Hindus, and then
eventually force them to compromise. Just like Jinnah and his cohorts
demanded (apart from present day Pakistan/Bangladesh) alongwith whole of
Assam, Hyderabad, Junagadh, Kashmir, and a Muslim belt stretching from
Lahore to Dhaka crossing East Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West
Bengal! Finally the weak Hindu leadership offered them Pakistan on a
platter. Blackmail works with the Hindus!
Perhaps that's what SRH reorg proponents wanted in the first place!
regards,
rajiv varma
