[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <ghenDuExpM.Dox@netcom.com>,
Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu> wrote:
>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.
so, i deleted 100s of lines......!!!
the argument in favour of the proposed reorganization is to ensure
that the articles are sorted into separate bins: those that deal
*primarily* with the hindu dharma will go into soc.religion.hindu.mod
those that deal with informative *announcements* will got to info
group. and, there will be an *unmoderated* forum left for political
discussions as well as for all aspects of hindus and hinduism that
do not meet the requirements or standards of moderated groups
the reason people supported the reorganization proposal is not
because of who the proponents were, not because of some one
insisting on a word *hindu* on some other group, not for the
purpose of *unseating* you as a moderator -- the offer for you
to continue as a moderator on the proposed moderator-panel has
*never* been revoked. the proposal has support because it makes
sense to have a (1) well defined charter and moderation policy
(2) the srh.moderated will focus on the *religious* aspects, and
will be free from 'your quoran is bad, our gita is great' kind
of posts, (3) and the group will not be cluttered with URL
links, meetings-announcements, directions to venues, call-for
actions, hate-filled discussion about the past historical
misdeeds etc on the srh.moderated
It is so sad that being a moderator, you have chosen to
refuse to take the opinion of readers through a usenet
vote
as some one put it:
"moderators are dictators"
"moderators own their groups"
"moderators can block reorganization proposals if they dont like
the first letter of the last name of the proponents"
gopal
