[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: SRH Reorg FAQ

[will be separately posted to srh]

In article <4sfgl4$jtf@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian  <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>Yeah, the new, reorganized, brand new srh will have only hate filled,
>insulting articles about Ramakrishna, Vivekananda etc and also nasty innuendos
>about shiva worshippers and "great" personalities. Ofcourse it will be done in
>such a way that vague justifications can be given later. Thank you very much
>for your campaign.

can you quote from RFD which particular moderation policy will
cause such anti-ramakrishna anti-vivekananda posts to appear
on srh upon reorganization? *iff* we have such a weak provision,
we should amend it. i have not seen such a criticism of RFD 
earlier. or was it tit-for-tat accusation?? well, what i said
was about the present srh: i have seen posts that say  explicitly
something to the effect 'your quoran is bad, our gita is great'.
no  moderated religious group  should allow such posts. and 
especially, given that  hinduism is known to have a great 
level accommodative sprit.


Moderation policy in the RFD specifically prohibits such hate-filled
posts, while there is *no* moderation policy at all for the current 
srh -- to the best of my understanding. 

>> 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"
>
>Cute. However in my opinion enough justifications have been given against the
>re-org. 

there are two different things: one is opinions in favour or against
the proposed reorg, and the second opinion about killing the proposal
from going to vote. What i am against is the dictatorial attitude
that prevents the readers from expressing the opinions. I am *not*
against your having opinions against the proposal per se, though i 
will be happy to hear *why* of  such opinons--- who knows, you may
be able sway me to your side on that count.

>However, I do agree that the decisions of Dale Lawrence are not
>consistent. I saw the post by Russ Allberry. They seem to have made up their
>mind. It seems more important to get USENET reforms, before you can push this
>RFD (at least seems like that to me).

thanks for this agreement. but you have not named the current 
moderator too in  the  list. he too is responsible to hold up
the vote.

>Ramakrishnan. 

gopal
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.