[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg: No Vendetta : No Proof!
In article <4csg8o$j95@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
V.S. Nair <cheaw260@emory.edu> wrote:
>Vivek Sadananda Pai (vivek@cs.rice.edu) wrote:
>: In article <4ciih8$lu1@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>: Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>: [ entirely snipped an article which mentions SRV more than SRH]
>
>Has Vivek conveniently snipped an article that raises some uncomfortable
>questions so that he may continue to snipe comfortably?
>Just curious ......
Don't stay curious, Vinodji - just take a look at the archives of SRH,
and you'll find that all of those questions were answered. Or, take a
look at news.groups, and you'll see that Badrinarayan Seshadri, one of
the proponents of SRV answered the questions Ajay raised. I submitted
a copy of his answers (with his permission) to SRH, and perhaps
they'll appear here as well.
Soon, his article will also appear in the SRH reorg FAQ, available
at http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
I'm glad to note that you're answering these questions. I also note
that Naciketa Tiwari has answered the same questions. Too bad that as
of right now (8th evening), Ajay hasn't answered those questions
;-(
I think that if we focus on those questions, rather than accusations
of vendettas, etc., than we could make some progress towards a
compromise.
>: Do you support the idea of having more moderators for SRH?
>Yes, if the situation warrants it. I am not convinced that this
>newsgroup has enough traffic to necessitate more moderators at this time.
But the delays would definitely be helped, and that itself would sound
like a good reason for more moderators. Plus, more moderators would
allow a process of appeals, etc., for posts which get rejected, so
even if you don't see the need for more moderators, perhaps some of
the more active contributors of the newsgroup might. After all, at
least one person who contributes regularly has indicated that the
delays which used to be common on this newsgroup definitely dampen
discussion.
Even a look at the recent pace of discussion will show that the
discussion has benefitted from the faster turnaround time we've seen
since Ajay was sent the RFD.
>: Do you support the idea of having an unmoderated group TRH and a
>: moderated info group under SRH?
>No. I find this to be impractical at this jucture and also
>inconvenient.
May I ask why? After all, only those people who want to see
unmoderated discussion would even have to look at it, so what is
impractical or inconvenient about it?
>: 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; I am quite happy having the
[...]
What about posts which ask if the Ultras were responsible for the
plague in Surat? What about posts which deal only with Indian
politics?
>: 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.
Well, Vinodji, this sounds like a good reason for having the
unmoderated newsgroup talk.religion.hindu. After all, if the moderator
were to have listened to your interpretation, those posts wouldn't
have been allowed, and there would be no process for appeal, since
there was only a single moderator. With the unmoderated group, the
authors could have then taken those hypothetically rejected posts and
continued the discussion in TRH.
>: Do you support the idea of having guidelines for the behavior of the
>: moderators of SRH?
>
>How a moderator behaves is his or her business. I am concerned only with
>how a moderator moderates. Sometimes these slips of the keyboard can
>give significant insight into what a person really means.
Well, to give an example from real life - I was told at a recent HSC
meeting that HSC members were not allowed to advertise events having
meat or alcohol under the HSC banner. However, the person told me,
those could be carried out by HSC members under some different name,
if they wanted to have those. So, likewise, it makes sense to limit
how people could use the soc.religion.hindu newsgroup name in
advertising their opinions.
>There has been some concern raised about the moderator exhibiting bias.
>At this time it is merely an insinuation. The facts belie the accussation.
>
>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?
Then how many days do you accept as an unreasonable delay? Most of the
texts we discuss on SRH concern events which took place thousands of
years ago, so even a delay of a month or a year would be minor
compared to those events, but in practice, a one month delay would be
ludicrous.
>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 delays of 5-10 days seems to indicate that additional moderators
would be useful. After all, doesn't it make sense for the readers to
judge responsiveness?
>At this time Ajay Shah's statement of the RFD being motivated by a personal
>vendetta seems credible to me.
Well, perhaps you should read the rebuttals that have been provided
every time he has raised such an issue. As one person put it, the
vendetta claims were like bad cut-and-paste jobs.
>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 ....
Well, Bon Giovanni seems to indicate that he's going to vote no on
this reorg, so that makes one person who voted for SRV who will not be
voting yes this time.
>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?
A quick clarification, first - the proponents for the SRH reorg are
not the proponents from SRV.
However, this one's easy, Vinodji - you'll remember that 4 out of the
5 proponents on this SRH reorg RFD were very active participants on
alt.hindu, SRH's predecessor, and a quick scan of the archives will
show it. They also spoke out in favor of SRV because people were
flooding alt.religion.vaisnava (SRV's predecessor) with articles about
topics like "The Genital Mutilation of Children". That thread, for
example, was created by Jai Maharaj, who was responsible for much of
the cross-posted off-topic garbage sent to ARV.
So, a group of people were interested in making ARV better, and SRV is
the result. Likewise, a different group of people are interested in
making SRH better, and this reorg RFD is the result.
>To suggest
>that there is no relationship between the two is to be both untrue and
>illogical.
Well, 3 of the 5 proponents were the proponents for
soc.culture.indian.karnataka, a group to make Karnataka-related
discussion available to people who do not get the alt* hierarchy
(since the predecessor of SCIK was alt.culture.karnataka). So, would
you like to also draw some connection between the two RFDs? I'm sure
someone can concoct the charge that this is an attempt by a group of
Karnataka-lovers to take over SRH, right?
>Admittedly, this campaign for reorganization of SRH has been carried out
>in a rather self-righteous manner by the proponents. At first glance their
>logic seems unassailable. Almost .....
This couldn't be a case of pot-kettle-black, could it Vinodji? After
all, I hadn't seen a post from you in a long time, but I'm not sitting
here questioning your motives, am I?
>On the other hand their motives are questionable. At the least ....
>
>Suspiciously,
>
>Vinod S. Nair
>
>--
>Best Wishes,
>Vinod
Suspicious _and_ with best wishes? Well, to each his own, I guess, but
that does sound like an odd choice for a closing greeting.
-Vivek
(submitted around Mon Jan 8 21:16:05 CST 1996)
