[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
In article <ghenDu9s2A.147@netcom.com>,
Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
>Namaskar,
>
>Here is my response to some of the points raised by Shrisha Raoji.
Thanks for the honorific, but I really don't deserve it; perhaps you
should reserve it for others. Our mutual friends tell me that you are
quite a bit older than me, too.
>On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
>> In article <ghenDtz5u4.6JD@netcom.com>,
>> Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> I beg to differ. The newsgroup was *NOT* created in its present form:
>> it had no moderation policy statement in the CFV (which is quite
>> amazing, if you think of it), and the moderation policy has been added
>> completely later, and amended in bits and pieces continually by a
>> process that has never been clarified.
>
>This is not true at all. The CFV was *posted* by the vote taker without
>the charter, although it was submitted with one. This mistake, when
>realized, the vote taker cancelled the original CFV, and CFV was re-posted.
Very good. Now, notice I said moderation policy, not charter.
>> It should interest you to know that the only reason for the reorg
>> being junked is that *I* stood up for the word `Indian' during the
>> saga of the soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir proposal. Tale finally
>> threw away the mask and stated that he was tired of how much work I
>> had caused for all those involved in newsgroup creation, etc. (he
>> apparently had no memory of having appreciated my cooperation); he was
>> clearly reducing it to a one-to-one thing, and because he didn't like
>> me over SCI.J-K, the reorg wasn't on. Everything else is just so much
>> chaff presented for the uninformed.
>
>I, along with all the other Hindus and Indians who support the
>cause of Bharat and Kashmir, dispite disagreement with you on SRH re-org
>supported the SCI-JK newsgroup. Kashmir to me, and I contend, to most
>people from Bharat, is not a political issue, but the issue of integrity
>of our motherland. You might recall our personal e-mail exchanges on
>this issue, where I offered all my support for SCI-JK.
>
>Afer all, I have written and published a book on Kashmir titled
>"Our Kashmir" in 1990.
Thanks for the support. This matter is actually irrelevant, but I
just thought you'd like to know that in spite of all that we may
discuss, the issue is actually being decided by completely irrelevant
considerations; makes this whole exercise look cheap, and everyone
involved including you, look cheap...
Btw, if there is an ISBN reference or some other detail such as
publisher, Library of Congress number, etc., for your book, I'd like
to know. Thanks in advance.
>I might add that I sought similar sentiments of unity, when I expressed my
>opinion that the Vaishnavas are Hindus, which many of the proponents of the
>soc.religion.vaishnava vehemently rejected.
Please; let's not go into that again. That's not the truth and you
know it. You failed to express any sentiments at all all through the
RFD period, and did so only after it was too late to change anything.
I don't want to bring up this matter again in detail unless you force
me to.
>> Your "conclusive proof" has been debunked so many times, and you've
>> never quite managed to come up with a reasonable rebuttal of any kind.
>
>Actually, one of the first postings, which suggested re-org of SRH, based
>on my position of Vaishnava being part of Hindu originated from
>Shrishaji. Some of the readers of SRH posted this on SRH during the
>debate. This posting is available in the SRH archives.
And, I'm sure, responses to it also are. That's what I meant by
saying that the "conclusive proof" had been debunked.
>> Commendable. But why didn't you tell the readers of SRH this before
>> the reorg, or even during? They come last?
>
>Please refer to the SRH re-org in the archives. I had made this point
>during the debate.
"This point" being?
>> Not quite. Why is it that initial approvals are not to be done by
>> them? Are you against that? Having more people doing initial
>> approvals would improve turnaround times for postings.
>
>There has not been any credible complaints about the posting delays.
>There are 4-6 (mostly 5) postings a week. Consistent with most of the
>moderated newsgroups. Again, please refer to the archives for the proof.
Wouldn't you like to be *better* than most, rather than merely
*consistent* with them? That we have an average situation now is not
a good argument against a proposal to make things better than average.
>> Then again, it is unjust to the readers who may have to tolerate
>> greater delay than necessary (especially in case of h/w outages such
>
>Even with the hardware related delays, since we now have one main and two
>backup accounts, this problem has been addressed. Also, please note that
>there has not been a single week when I did not post 4-6 times a week.
>Consistent with almost all the other newsgroups.
There has not been a single week since the RFD, perhaps. I'm not
really sure otherwise.
>> as you've experienced), and it's also unjust to you since you have to
>> continually face the prospect of three others watching over your
>> shoulder all the time, three others who aren't equals, and who do not
>> have a day-to-day grasp of what the job takes.
>
>I believe that unfairness in moderation has never been a problem with
>SRH, and just in case, there are genuine problems that a reader may have,
>this mechanism will address them, although I must say that other than the
>some of the re-org proponents, who have a personal vendetta against my
>stand on Vaishnava being a part of Hindu dharma and society, there have
>not been complaints about unfairness.
Unfairness can run two ways, I think.
>[stuff about GHEN sponsorship of SRH deleted]
>
>To clarify : GHEN plays no role in the moderation of SRH. GHEN does
>not sponsor moderation of SRH, just the hardware support for SRH.
But why does it say it sponsors the newsgroup? Why did you say during
the RFD discussion that it does not sponsor the group, and yet the
website continues to say this? That's the point.
>GHEN provides free web space to *any* Hindu organization as a service to
>community, and many postings offering this service have appeared on
>newsgroups. Currently, the organizations utilizing this service include
>e.g., to Mata Amritananda Mayi Center, [proposed] American Gita Society,
>American Vedic Institute [site under preparation], Sanskrit Bharati,
>mirror to jaguar site, [proposed] Yoga Institute, etc. GHEN also offers
>mail re-direction to some Hindu organization. GHEN gets noting
>in return. That is the nature of selfless service in Hindu dharma, and
>GHEN offers it. I believe that your innuendos in this regards is noting but
>cheap shots at the community service undertaken by GHEN.
No innuendos. Facts only. I pointed out that the GHEN home page
clearly and unambiguously states that it sponsors the SRH newsgroup;
you did not refute this. I also reminded you that you denied such
sponsorship during the RFD discussion. Right? Now you're hedging the
issue by bringing in GHEN's community service, etc.; that has nothing
to do with this matter. Does or does not GHEN sponsor the newsgroup?
If it does, then when did the status change, since it did not, per
your word, do so during the RFD discussion? If it does not, why does
the GHEN website (URL given in your signature) lie?
>Just as the same individual sponsoring the SRV archives and home pages
>of some other Hindu organization or temple does not indicate correlation
>the same applies here.
You're confusing issues here -- no individual sponsors the SRV archive
-- show me where such a claim has been made. There is an archive of
some SRV postings maintained by a certain individual, but he has no
rights or claims to sponsorship over the newsgroup itself. If such
were the case, then Deja News could probably claim to "sponsor" most
of UseNet.
For the last time, we're not talking of GHEN's keeping SRH archives,
which may be considered in keeping with their exemplary record of
community service. We're talking of their claim to sponsoring the
*newsgroup*, and whether this claim is true or not. If it is true,
then I'd like to know in what sense, and since when; if it is false,
then I'd like to know why the false claim is made on GHEN's website,
and what steps, if any, you propose to take to address the situation.
>> Since you have conveniently decided to stick to the solo moderator
>> position and ignored all well-reasoned arguments, "the motives can be
>> obviously assigned."
>>
>My contention still remains. The proponents and vocal supporters of SRV
>who happen to be proponents and supporters of SRH re-org seek different
>standards for both the groups. Please refer to the SRH re-org debate for
>further analogies.
I was there; I remember. You did make a posting saying why you
thought there was a double standard, and we replied. You didn't come
back again on that issue. Yet you toot the same horn again.
>> group? Even assuming that your little kingdom is not to be disturbed
>> at any cost, that still is eminently fair.
>
>Now this to me seems like a little personal attack. I do not think that
>I have ever treated SRH as a personal kingdom. It has been your repeated
>position, not mine. I consider to be my social responsibility. I did not
>create alt.hindu and did not propose soc.religion.hindu because I was in
>need for a kingdom, but I saw that there had been a need for this
>newsgroup, and while all the major religions in the world had newsgroups
>Hindu did not.
A kingdom *is* a social responsibility, because a king is a social
position. My statement is unaltered; others may judge matters for
themselves, also keeping in light the recent claims about moderators
owning their groups, etc.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>regards,
>
>ajay shah
>ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Follow-Ups:
