[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 1996 16:39:45 -0500
-
References: <ghenDuExpM.Dox@netcom.com> <ghenDuKtqH.7BC@netcom.com> <4sfgl4$jtf@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4shp89$bmk@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
> >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
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Correct. That's exactly why we have had posts in ah like: so and so is a
hedonist, so and so is not different from hiranyakashipu and posts designed to
inflame followers of some personality/organization. As for the previous
statement of mine it was _sarcastic_ and did not refer to the contents of the
RFD. Some of the organizers of the RFD/proposed moderators have shown a total
lack of "accomodative" spirit which you tout. Perhaps they are vaishnavas but
not Hindus? :-). You should really choose your bed-fellows carefully before
trying to advocate "accomodative spirit", whatever that may be.
Also please note another thing. There have been quite a few posts on how
shaivas are so and so because the bhagavatam says so or that shankara was out
to cheat people because the padma purana says so etc. People comparing the
Koran and the Gita is quite similar. I fail to see why the secular blood of
people starts boiling only when the latter discussions take place. If you feel
that something is wrong with the discussions on Gita and Koran, please point
it out. Since comparing the Gita with some other book is very much in the
realm of discussion on the Hindu religion, there is no reason why this should
be banned.
> 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.
Thanks, I read the RFD. As I was saying, I was being sarcastic.
> 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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh, I even remember you trying to answer some of my objections. From the tenor
of your posts I doubt whether that will happen. You people are so convinced
that posts which have politics+religion should not be posted and wish to shove
that opinion down everyone's throats. Realize that your concept of religion is
not everyone else's and it is nice to allow posts as long as they satisfy some
minimum requirement. The minimum requirement being that it has some connection
which is direct, either material or spiritual, with Hinduism. If you guys are
extremely spiritual, neglect the other posts. Why are you stopping the rest of
us from discussing the other valid stuff on a moderated srh?
> >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.
While I wouldn't have done that, I really can't blame Ajay Shah. After all
threats were issued for his non-cooperation on the srv issue, and quite
justifiably he sees a retaliation motive and decided to scuttle your plans.
I remember that the "threat letter" to Ajay Shah was reposted in the previous
discussions on the RFD and must be in the archives.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate