[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : The SRH Re-Organisation Mess
In article <4skjqc$aa4@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Sabberwal Suraj <sabberwa@NCSMSG02TR.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>FRIVILOUS issues like whether Vaishnavites are Hindus or not are being
>thrown in .
Exactly - this issue has been dragged in by the opponents of the reorg
simply to try to shift focus away from the reorg itself and onto the
proponents.
>The limit of absurdity was when one writer went to the extent of
>asking for a DEFINITION of Hinduism WITH his own pre-conditions ! This is
>ridiculous.
No, it's not. See below:
First, you proceed to state that there is no definition for Hinduism.
>Well, for such UNLEARNED writers, the answer is simple - there is no
>definition for Hinduism.
But then, you go on to say:
>2. Vaishnavas as Hindus
> ----------------------------------
>Ofcourse they are Hindus.
How do you conclude that? Better yet, why do you conclude that and
bring it into the discussion if you feel that the whole issue is
pointless?
Remember, this whole issue should have been settled with SRV, but the
opponents of the reorg keep on bringing it up, over and over. My
personal position is this - there is no point being dogmatic about
forcing anyone to call himself or herself a Hindu. Period. After your
long post on how undogmatic Hinduism is, I would expect that you
should agree with me.
>It is quite apparent to a person who can read,speak & write plain simple
>English that there is an " ORGANIZED CAMPAIGN ON to CLOSE DOWN
> soc.religion.hindu. Prima facie, this is the view one gets by simply
>browsing through various messages. Even a 2nd grade child can make this out.
If a second grade child asked you how you determined things without
defining them, what would you answer?
Your vague, intuitive notions of things are just that - vague, and
intuitive, but only for you. If you expect other people to agree with
you or see merit in what you say, then the first thing that should go
is the proof by assertion.
The reorg has been the primary reason we're seeing improvements in SRH
- look at how often the posts clear now as opposed to the time before
the reorg. We now actually have discussion about what should and
should not be allowed on SRH. We're now seeing some steps towards
bringing in more consensus on SRH, even though the powers that be have
decided that the readership is not allowed to a vote.
In short, you and I differ on what the reorg is doing for SRH. While
this discussion might be viewed as a short-term detriment, in the long
term, I expect only good things to come of it.
-Vivek
