[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
Subject: Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 96 23:25:49 MDT
-
Apparently-To: shrao@nyx.net
-
Expires: 31 August 1996 23:59:59 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups, soc.culture.indian
-
Organization: \.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n\ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
References: <4nd8fs$h2b@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <ghenDu9s2C.151@netcom.com> <4s0elc$r6i@larry.rice.edu> <4s0g0g$nvg@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>
-
Sender: shrao@nyx.net
In article <4s0g0g$nvg@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <4s0elc$r6i@larry.rice.edu>,
>Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@noel.cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>
>>In article <ghenDu9s2C.151@netcom.com>,
>>vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao) writes:
>>|> In article <4r92vf$m37@larry.rice.edu>,
>>|> Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>>|> [...] It seems that the only person in
>>|> >this discussion who doesn't believe that the reorg serves the readers
>>|> >of SRH well is the moderator, and this reason alone is causing all of
>>|> >the meta-discussions.
>>|>
>>|> My memory tells me that there were others, such as N. Tiwari and
>>|> myself who did not support the reorganization.
>>
>>The question is "does the reorg serve the readers well", and not
>>some issue of personal vendetta. If you'd like to see why all the
>>personal vendetta claims are nonsense, please take a look at the
>>rather thorough rebuttals -
>
>How does this prove that the >only< person against the reorg is the
>moderator?
It doesn't; there are others who are against the reorg in spite of not
being able to show how it does not serve the readers well -- but one
can only get so far and no further with rationality. Notice that
Vivek said that Ajay was the only one who doesn't believe that the
reorg serves the readers well, not that he's the only one opposed to
it.
>>http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html
>>
>>|> Another point that I made at that time relates to ``we are willing to
>>|> have Ajay Shah as moderator'' ploy. The RFD said that one moderator
>>
>>Even if you want to continue with this conspiracy theory, please
>>explain away how Gopal's compromise proposal wouldn't have addressed
>>this? If you recall, he specifically said in his proposal that
>>Ajay would be allowed to _hand-pick_ the majority of the moderation
>>panel. That proposal was never given serious consideration by
>>most of the opponents of the reorg, although it effectively
>>answered all of the conspiracy claims.
>
>If my memory servs me right, Gopal was not one of the proponents.
>There never was a revised RFD that included it.
Which is a dodge. There could not have been a revised RFD unless a
concrete response had been received to the suggestion made.
Otherwise, how could there have been a second RFD at all? After all,
Ajay was the one supposed to choose, and unless he chose and named the
two others, whom would one name on the revised document as proposed
moderators?
Of course, there is no possibility of a second RFD because of Tale's
blatant double-standard and backtracking; he has consistently failed
to make a commitment to anything and stick to it, and has not come
within a mile of showing a shred of integrity.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>--
>Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
>nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
>(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
