[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: new site needs your point of view
Dear Friends,
Namaskar!
There were six messages that I received from Vivek ji, and I responded to five
of them, and asked him to direct further questions to the newsgroup, since I
believe theat his questions have been adequately answered and the SRH
readership ought to be the judge of the responses presented.
What follows is the essence of the communication I have had with
Vivek Pai. These are not necessarily exact quotes, rather a summary.
Question : What is the process by which such changes can be made - namely,
who can make such suggestions
Anaswer : Anyone can, and many users have made suggestion, and these
suggestions, were most of the times thrown open to the newsgroup for
decision.
E.g., Badri Sheshadriji from Cornell suggested the language of communication
issue, and I posted it to the net. Suggestions for the constructive changes
in administrative matters are always welcome.
Some other users have made suggestions regarding .sig file size etc.
and they have been/are being posted.
These matters are being decided by the moderator based on the consensus.
(Please note that in Soc.Religion.Vaishnava, the software moderator
eventually decides what keywords to add to the list, and in every moderated
newsgroup, a moderator assumes the ultimate responsibility to decide the
relevence of the post to the newsgroup, and I will fulfill my responsibilities
as the moderator).
Another question raised by Vivekji was :
About the Quan Yin posts and the "not directly relevant" clause -
can you tell me where such posts stand now? I haven't seen anything
which links Quan Yin to Hinduism after my initial post, so I
would like to know
a) if future Quan Yin propaganda will be allowed on SRH, and
b) what the process is for determining what is and is not
directly relevant.
My response :
As a moderation decision, I have determned that the Quan Yin posts are
relevent to this newsgroup. I agree with the poster's explanation about
the Quan Yin philosophy's relevence to Hindu dharma.
I will not shut some group that claims to be Hindu out, and the poster of the
Quan Yin message claims that they are. Anyone who disagrees is
welcome to carry out a discussion, on SRH or privately with the poster,
on the validity of his claim.
Each post is different, and is evaluated based on the contents to
determine its relevence to SRH, after that is the job of the moderator,
to decide the relevence of the post to this newsgroup.
I was further asked if the quotations from Bible were applicable to this
newsgroup. My response was
"Recently, someone posted a quotation from Quaran and related it to Hindu
philosophy. Such posts are always welcome"
To the question : What guidelines are used to evaluate it?
My response was posts that are "directly related to Hindu dharma
(or comparative religion type posts that compare Hindu philosophy with
others), are welcome." There is no way to pre-determine and evolve a
mathematical formula defining what Hindu dharma is, and any reasonable
explanation extended by the poster is given due respect and consideration.
Vivekji had also questioned the rejection of two articles, one had no
permission from the other author and the other pertained to sexual methodology
and that mentioned Kama Sutra. The title was :
"Truth About Relationships In Ancient India? "
contained sexually explicit matter.
My response was :
Because of explict discussion of sex on one and no permission from the
original poster on other as reasons. With the new telecommunications
bill becoming law, there is now an increased impetus to not accept articles
that discuss explict sex acts on SRH.
Mere mention of Kama Sutra does not lead to rejection, sexually explicit
quotations do. SRH is *not* an appropriate forum for discussing sexually
explit material or sex methodology. And, I stand by that moderation decision.
(And no, I do not wish to post these messages to prove my point, nor, do I
think that I should send this phrase to Vivekji in a private mail either,
original author, after all, has been informed fully).
I find it some what ironic that on one hand Vivekji has been arguing against
the inclusion of Quan Yin posts on the grounds that they are not relevent
to Hindu dharma, and on the other hand he is arguing for the foul mouth
garbage and discussion of sexual practices during Ramayana period (which is
being passed as Kama Sutra discussion) on this newsgroup.
I do not believe in being argumantative or accusatory, I have done my best
to keep this newsgroup "clean" and accomodative, however, I also believe that
Vivekji's repeated arguments on this topic are perhaps linked to the
politically re-org move for SRH.
I frimly stand by my moderation decisions, and I will let the readership of
SRH judge my answers.
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
References:
