[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
Namaskar,
On 16 Jul 1996, Shrisha Rao wrote:
> In article <ghenDu9s2A.147@netcom.com>,
> Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
> >Namaskar,
>
> 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.
Perhaps, but probably not in age Srisha ji :-)
>
> >On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Shrisha Rao wrote:
> >
> >> In article <ghenDtz5u4.6JD@netcom.com>,
> >> Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >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.
Actually, I should have said Moderation Policy. Not charter. The
Moderation policy although mailed along with Charter, was not posted.
The original CFV was cancelled, and a new CFV was posted, along with
charter and Moderation policy
>
> >> 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
> >
> >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
> >Afer all, I have written and published a book on Kashmir titled
> >"Our Kashmir" in 1990.
>
> discuss, the issue is actually being decided by completely irrelevant
Well, actually you brought up Kashmir issue, I did not. I merely
responded, saying that all of us stood up for Kashmir vote, and voted,
wrote messages etc. You may want to check the "Yes" vote list on SCI-JK
for verification.
> 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.
The book is completely sold out. I am working on a html version of the
book. However, currently some less than constructive issues are
consuming my time. I will be sure to inform you when its ready.
Glad to see, that Indians can put aside disagreements when it comes to
unity of India.
>
> 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.
1. I did make a post on news.groups expressing my sentiments before CFV
2. As I mentioned before, it was after the ISKCON UK temple incident, which
occured during the voting period, that compelled me to point out, that I
would personally support a Vaishnava newsgroup only with the name Hindu
in it. Not otherwise. Only as a united community Hindus can withstand
the pressures such as discrimination against ISKCON in UK or Armenia.
>
> And, I'm sure, responses to it also are. That's what I meant by
> saying that the "conclusive proof" had been debunked.
Not to those who are honest observers of this process.
>
> >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.
>
Complaints about delays in posting are mostly hoax, statistics are
skewed and compiled in first 2-3 months of operation. We are already
better than average. I have been told that in many similar moderated
USENET groups, a delay of upto three days is considered acceptable. So
even 4 times a week is above average.
But then, when personal vendetta is involved truth is the first
casuality, as in here.
> >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.
Archives are available...
> Unfairness can run two ways, I think.
whatever that meant...
>
>
> 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.
because it provides hardware support (sponsorship), and archival support.
Nothing more... Of course, anyone can create archives for SRH. Archives
are, just as in SRV, not official.
>
> >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
Please check archives. My original post also said, GHEN provides
hardware sponsorship. It did for alt.hindu and it does for
soc.religion.hindu.
>
> 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,
Hardware support for the newsgroup, in addition to archival. Not
moderation.
> 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.
>
There are glaring double standards that the proponents of SRH re-org seek
to apply to SRH, that they have not applied to SRV. These include :
1. No provision in the charter for adding additional key words
2,. No provision for removal of or addition of additional
software/hardware moderators
3. No provision for back up moderation when the hardware at one site fails
etc. etc. etc.
> 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.
That is only if I considered myself to be a king. I do not. I try to
serve, not rule. And yes, I stand up for the word Hindu, enduring
personal attacks, personal vendetta and petty politics, not for personal
gains but for principles
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
