[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of soc.religion.hindu
Ajay Shah wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
> > I strongly feel that this *surreptious* killing of the proposal
> > without discussing it on the open forum like news.groups, and
> > without giving opportunity to the readership or potential
> > readership of the srh news group to participate in such a
> > discussion is not a decent action.
> 4. What would be the state of usenet, if every three months a group of
> people, with personal vendetta against the moderator, calls for the
> re-org for that newsgroup and then tries to impose its own terms and condition
> for "compromise"? Considering that the re-org proposal was
> floated within 2-3 months of the formation of this newsgroup, this is
> a very likely scenario.
To be fair, _some_ of the moderators, IMO, on the basis of the evidence I saw,
did not have personal vendetta. However, I am afraid the same can't be said of
every one.
> > Basically, there were no serious objections that i can
> > recall on *technical* grounds of potential traffic or
> > name space issues.
>
> There were serious objections. And they were all pointed out very clearly.
>
> As I have pointed out in many posts (available in the archives), I
> believe that the entire re-organization move was politically motivated,
> as a personal vendatta against me, because I stood up for the word
> "HINDU" during the formation of soc.religion.vaishnava
I'd like to point out here that I was one of those people who voted YES for
srv. However, I was and am still against the RFD in it's present form. I
clearly noted my objections and no answers were given, other than some hand
waving arguments.
Though, I am still not able to see the vaishnava-but-not-hindu argument and
how racial characteristics may make one a vaishnava but not hindu, I was still
willing to give the benefit of doubt to the vaishnavas and voted YES for the
group. It was quite disappointing that some of the points in the moderation
rules were explicitly targeted at Ajay's political leanings. If anyone doesn't
like the politics+religion mixture, they can disregard the posts, as simple as
that. Now, please don't point out the "talk" group. I voiced my objections
against that separately. The moderated ng would provide some sane discussion
of political+religious issues unlike the culture groups.
> The fact that the re-org move started within two months of the
> formation of SRH, and right after the formation of srv, based on
> the posts during the srv voting, is in itself conclusive proof that
> the SRH re-org move was based on personal vendetta and petty politics.
>
> However, I believe that re-hashing this old debate is quite futile.
Correct.
> However, now, with these problems behind us, I am very pleased to anounce that
> I am forming a Moderation Appeals Committee, consisting of three members
>
> These three are :
>
> Rajan Parrikar
> Dhruba Chakrabarty and
> Nachiketa Tiwari
[snip]
> I hope that this is the last positng I have to make on this topic, and
> that we can all use our time more constructively, in propagating Hindu
> dharma on the net.
Why can't the proponents of the RFD join in now and try to offer further
suggestions now? I hope Ajay will accept them in good spirit and examine their
merits and demerits objectively.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
