[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
Namaskar,
I think that a point by point rebuttal to the SRH Re-org FAQ will not
serve any purpose, every single point raised therein has been more than
adequately addressed multiple times and the entire debate is available in
the archives.
I thank the vast majority of the readers of soc.religion.hindu, who have
publicly and privately supported my stand in past few months, I thank them
not for supporting me as an individual, but for proclaiming that those who
stand for the word Hindu ought not to be bullied for their stand.
For those who want a brief explanation to the 100s of lines of worthless
arguments, here is the synopsis.
1. The Re-org move was a result of my of my insistence that the Vaishnava
newsgroup contain the word "hindu" in there. As it is conventional for
many religious/cultural newsgroups. My recommendation was to have
soc.religion.hindu.vaishnava
After all, the re-org move started withing merely 2-3 months of the
formation of the newsgroup, and the threats of re-org came immediately
after my stand on the inclusion of word Hindu in the name of the newsgroup.
2. The proponents of Vaishnava newsgroup chastaized me for my insistence
of word Hindu and promised a revavange.
3. A collection of skewed statistics was posted to show that there were
moderation delays etc.
4. Some argued that the newsgroup was politically biased, however, this
argument had no validity in light of thepostings such as those chastizing
the Hindutva organization, and the fact that the proponents failed to
point to posts that were indeed rejected for being politically biased.
5. Then it was pointed out that group needs multiple moderators, and a
better defined charter etc. etc. However the proponents of SRH-reorg who
happen to be proponents/strong supporters/involved in moderation process
of soc.religion.vaishnava themselves were (are) not willing to abide by
the same rules.
E.g., there is no provision for removal of SRV software of hardware
moderator removal, no properly defined process for specifying the keywords
required for approval of posts, no provision for back-up machines of the
currently used machine has hardware/software problems, no restrictions on
the software/hardware moderators in claiming in their posts that they are
involved in the moderation process of soc.religion.vaishnava newsgroups
etc. etc. etc.
6. Association with Global Hindu Electronic Networks was pointed out.
However, just as archival of soc.religion.vaishnava newsgroup does not,
in the minds of proponents, indicate the ownership of the newsgroup, the
same ought to apply to GHEN.
Global Hindu Electronic Networks is a proud sponsor of many Hindu
endevous, including at least half a dozen Hindu organizations to whom it
provides free web space and assistance, and this offer is open to any
other Hindu organization that fits the qualification criteria.
Readers are urged to visit this site and decide for themselves :
http://www.hindunet.org
7. As the newsgroup evolves, we have incorporated the suggestions of
many, to improve the newsgroup. These include :
1. Accepting only directly relevent material on Hindu dharma on the
newsgroup.
2. Recommendation for excessive quotations and length of sig file
3. Better handling of cross posts from other newsgroups
4. Rules about postings explicitly sexual material
5. Having multiple backup accounts for moderation
6. Formation of the Moderation Appeals Committee (with pending invitation
to Shree Raghu Sheshadriji), which may over ride the moderation decision
of the moderator regarding a rejection of article.
7. Under Consideration : Meaningful header in the posts, such as INFO,
ANNOUNCEMENT, etc.
In summay, the proposed re-org move was noting but an outcome of petty
politics and personal vendetta against the moderator of
soc.religion.hindu newsgroup (me), who stood up for the word Hindu.
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
