[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: No Vendetta : No Proof!
On 9 Jan 1996 01:26:48 GMT, cheaw260@emory.edu (V.S. Nair) wrote in
soc.religion.hindu:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4ciih8$lu1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>: Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>: Do you support the effort to move all purely political posts out of
>: SRH and into the unmoderated group?
>SRH should allow postings that deal with Hindus, Hindu religion, Hindu
>society, Hindu culture, Hindu History, etc;
This is amazing to me as SRH stands for
Soc.Religion.Hindu
Therefore Hindu society, Hindu culture, Hindu history and so on would
have to be discussed in:
Soc.Hindu
Soc.Culture.Hindu (which already exists as Soc.Culture.Indian)
Soc.History.Hindu
>: Do you support the idea of banning from SRH posts which encourage : hate?
>
>Yes. In the past, I have seen some posts that carried some virulent
>attacks on some revered Hindu saints like Swami Vivekananda and
>Ramkrishna Paramhansa. I believe that these posts promoted hate. But
>they were allowed. I distinctly remember the authors and I watch with
>curiosity their self righteous role in preventing postings that
>promote hate on SRH.
As a firm supporter of Ramakrishna Paramhansa, my reaction is that
these posts did not promote hate, but instead were simply attacks on
his philosophy. As such they were apropo to s.r.h
However, I have seen posts allowed on s.r.h that while, still not hate
speech, nevertheless were attacks on the character of Hindu teachers,
and as such should not have been allowed, but were. Since such
attacks did not discuss the religious philosophy of the teachers, they
should not have been allowed and should not be allowed on any future
s.r.h
>Some statistics have been presented to show that there is a delay in
>posting articles on SRH after they are submitted, sometimes by as much as
>10 days. I will not be concerned even if this were to be true. The
>discussions in SRH have not really dealt with matters of extreme
>urgency. Most questions and issues raised on SRH are 'timeless', so what
>if someone's post is delayed by 10 days? I will remain satisfied thinking
>that Ajay Shah is doing the best he can and will seek additional help when
>the task becomes unmanageable.
The point is that if multiple moderators can reduce these delays (and
I personally noted many delays at the time they occurred, that are
listed on the srh delay web site), then why not have these multiple
moderators, especially noting that Ajay Shah can continue as one of
them?
>At this time Ajay Shah's statement of the RFD being motivated by a personal
>vendetta seems credible to me. If this RFD ever comes to a vote, I wonder if
>we will find that all the people who voted for the creation of SRV will vote
>'en masse' in favor of the RFD? Just thinking out aloud .... And while I am
>at it, I also wonder why is it that the proponents of the RFD were also
>some of the people actively involved in the creation of SRV? To suggest
>that there is no relationship between the two is to be both untrue and
>illogical.
The SRV creation made sense and so it made sense to have voted for it.
The RFD to reorganize SRH makes sense and so it makes sense to vote
for it.
The relationship between the two is that they both make sense!
Cheers,
Ken
kstuart@snowcrest.net
"The ego arises from the mistaken notion that the light of consciousness
reflected in the intellect and coloured by objectively perceived phenomena
is the true nature of the Self. Thus, the personal ego falsely identifies
the Self with that which is not the Self and vice versa." - Mark Dyczkowski
