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

Re: SRH Reorg FAQ

[will be posted to srh separately, in addition to news.groups
and sci]

In article <4skjt1$aam@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian  <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
>
>You should really choose your bed-fellows carefully before
>trying to advocate "accomodative spirit", whatever that may be.

basically, i do not like to  see srh turning into another sci.
i like  -- personally -- to see a well organized group with
discussion on scritptures and spiritual matters. i dont like
-- for example, posts of shri Dhrubaji to get subsumed by posts
that  say 'muslims dont eat animals killed by us, so let us boycott 
their products'. and the reorg charter and moderation policy
appealed to me. and so i happened to located on the side the 
proponent Vivek  happens to be. but the  point that i would
like to focus upon is that -- i dont care who the proponents are,
since what matters is what is contained in the RFD doc.


>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 the discussion was about the specific contents of gita and koran,
and then show problems with one w.r.t. other,  i agree with you. the
post is appropriate and healthy, but ofcourse some level of decorum
is maintained -- such as posting a pointer on some islamic group
about the discussion going on srh. otherwise we only get a biased
one sided view.

but dont you agree that, if disparaging comments are made about
koran *without* actually showing  why of them?

if some one posts an article that can offend  shivaites --  but
basically as a *discussion* of religious texts, i consider  such
posts as appropriate to srh. but, this also means that if some
one else posts articles that Rama Rajya was not that rama-rajya
indeed or that parasuraama is an exterminator or some such thing,
but  as an academic discussion on scriptures, then they too are 
appropriate -- even if they offend vaishnavites. the test --in
my opinion -- is whether the discussion reflects personal
prejudices and hatred OR a academic  debate of scriptures. 


>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. 


i hope i expressed my views  above.

>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?

 you have certain opinions and i have certain opinons. and similarly others
 on srh have opinions. dont you agree that the right way to decide if most
 of us want a particular set up is through a 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. 

i personally do not like reinitiation of the RFD debate. but if you
remember the "threat" letter, then please also kindly recall that some
one has *shown* that "reorg" plan *preceded* the threat letter. in addition,
there were flaws on the part of Ajay too: allowing a post by JM  asking
for Vote block against the  spirit of usenet vote, and never apologizing
for it, reinitiating RFD debate on groups that did not discuss RFD 
*after* RFD discussion is over, posting an article against srv that
was clearly utlized by JM for his  massive email campaign against srv
etc, and not asking JM to desist from using his name in the campaign
 ----- all these preceded the reorg as well as the so  called threat
letter. and even in that letter, it was stated that Ajay can continue
as a moderator, except that a well defined moderation policy and charter
are needed to be in  place.


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