[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
soc.religion.hindu administrativia
[ I'm including news.groups simply because it has been claimed that
I'm asking these questions because of the SRH reorg, a claim
which I'll address later in this note ]
A brief summary of the past:
I had several questions about some of the administrative changes on
soc.religion.hindu, which I felt were rather vague. I asked for
clarification (on the newsgroup) on a number of points, and I didn't
receive answers. Then, I sent a letter to srh-request, as some posters
suggested, and after not having my questions answered, I posted the
questions to the newgroup, as the moderator requested. He refused to
answer any more questions in personal mail, but instead told me:
"if you still have questions, I will answer them in public, and
let the SRH readership judge whether the questions have been
adequately answered or not."
I objected, saying that this is a matter that should be handled offline,
but my letter was ignored entirely. When I did finally post the questions
on the group, I got the following reply, which is full of half-truths.
I'd like to systematically clarify, but I'd also like to point out that
the questions _still_ haven't been answered. Incidentally, this response
from the moderator contains summaries of a discussion which occurred on
private e-mail, and which really didn't have to be repeated here. In
my previous note, I asked a series of questions which were standalone,
and those are the ones that continue to get ignored.
I'll leave the entire text of the message at the end of this note so that
it can be viewed in context, but I'll respond point by point before that.
|> 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
responses 3, 4 and 5 basically said "your questions have been answered,
and if you have more questions, they will only be addressed if you post"
Of my 6 messages, the first one asked about 9 questions, the second one
pointed out 3 questions that had been ignored, and asked 3 new questions
for clarification. The third once again pointed out questions which had
been ignored, and asked one new question. The last three kept asking
why this discussion couldn't continue over e-mail.
The questions that keep getting ignored are the ones regarding these
vague "adminstrative changes". The first time I saw this was after
an article was posted concerning a meeting about homosexuality. It had
nothing to do with Hinduism, and there was a request from the moderator
to ban things which weren't "directly relevant". I assumed it meant
things which were similarly "off-topic".
However, that hasn't been the case, and instead, we've seen articles
about UFO's, about the "physical immortality project", etc. The flip
side is that article which do seem more relevant than these have been
banned because of the "not directly relevant" change.
Since then, more "administrativia requests" have come forth, asking to
force English-only, and to ban a certain word. I wanted to know how
these requests were to be decided, and I was told it was through
"consensus". However, many of the questions I raised and others raised
were never answered, so I wanted to know _exactly_ how "consensus" would
be determined.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me to ask exactly what can be changed
through these sorts of requests, and how these changes are implemented.
After all, the "not directly relevant" clause has been applied in ways
which I never imagined.
|> (Please note that in Soc.Religion.Vaishnava, the software moderator
|> eventually decides what keywords to add to the list, and in every moderated
Once again, soc.religion.vaishnava is being brought in as a strawman
argument. The fact of the matter is that in the auto-moderated group
soc.religion.vaishnava, while the "software moderator [sic]" adds
keywords, _any_ keyword in that list is enough for a post to get passed,
regardless of the content of the post. That's what auto-moderation does.
Articles aren't rejected based on what they say - they are only rejected
based on the lack of keywords.
|> I was further asked if the quotations from Bible were applicable to this
|> newsgroup. My response was
This question was asked because the original Quan Yin message posted to
this group contained _nothing_ original by the poster. It was simply
a page of Quan Yin propaganda posted to the newsgroup, with nothing
relating it to Hindu dharma or anything of that nature.
If it had been some attempt at interreligious comparison or dialogue,
I would have had no objection. However, it wasn't - it was just propaganda
(not meant as a derisive term). So, I wanted to know if Christian
propaganda could be posted if it had as little relevance as the Quan
Yin stuff did. I have no objection at all to interfaith dialogue. However,
I saw nothing in that Quan Yin post which showed that the group was the
least bit Hindu.
|> 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.
It does not seem at all unreasonable to ask what caused the rejection of
an article. After all, the FCC has a list of words which cannot be said,
and if there are certain words or phrases which caused that article to
be rejected, I'd like to know. That article, by the way, did have some
_very_ relevant questions, namely
- why did adultery exist under the rule of Rama, and why was Sita (the
wife of Rama, and revered as ideal) accused of it
- how has the British influence changed Indian views of sexuality,
especially given ancient temples like Khujaraho, etc.
That article, to my knowledge, didn't contain _any_ objectionable words,
and if it did, all I wanted to know was what were they? The two English
words I saw which related to anatomy were "beasts and wiffles" (you get
the point) and there were two Sanksrit words which translated to "dennis
and regina" (once again, you get the point). However, those words weren't
obscene.
|> 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 read the article, and I can't say that it was foul-mouthed garbage.
Incidentally, I would imagine that you wouldn't be happy at all if
the entire text of the Kama Sutra were posted on this newsgroup, and
what Bobby Gupta wrote was definitely "small potatoes" compared to it.
|> Vivekji's repeated arguments on this topic are perhaps linked to the
|> politically re-org move for SRH.
Let's see - I wanted to handle this discussion over e-mail, and you
were the one who _insisted_ that it occur on the newsgroup. What should
one conclude from this? If I wanted to make this reorg-related, why would
I have tried to handle all of this through private e-mail?
|> I frimly stand by my moderation decisions, and I will let the readership of
|> SRH judge my answers.
This appeal to the readership appears to be grandstanding, and would
explain why you insisted on responding on the newsgroup. Furthermore,
I find it odd that you try to "summarize" the discussion. I'll be more
than happy to make available the full e-mail exchange and let people
see for themselves what really transpired.
The questions from my most recent article which still remain unanswered
are:
What can and cannot be changed through these Administrativia requests?
|> As always, we will adopt a consensus position
What exactly does this mean?
How exactly does one propose to build a consensus or
decide when one is reahched?
As a side note, when I last asked about the status of the "English-only"
amendment to SRH, I was told that a decision still had not been made.
Is that still the case, and if so, at what time does a decision get
made? I presented some valid arguments for why I felt SRH should _not_
become English-only, and I have yet to see any replies to them.
-Vivek
In article <4il8aa$9li@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, editor <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> writes:
|> 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
|> --
|> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Subm.: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
|> Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
References:
