[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana wrote:
> 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
Exactly what will happen to the talk group! Imagine an unmoderated group and
that too on religion. A happy hunting ground for all our esteemed net spammers
and many others.
-- 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
What is the percentage of posts like this. Atleast in srh, it has been pretty
low. I was an on-off reader of ah. I am not really sure about that. Not that
it matters now.
> 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.
Neither do I. If anyone else had proposed the talk group, I wouldn't have been
for that either.
> >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.
OK.
> but dont you agree that, if disparaging comments are made about
> koran *without* actually showing why of them?
Now we get to a sticky point.
> 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.
Now what you are saying is that the moderator has to see whether the posts
which have such views have _proper_ justification. IMO, it is too much to ask
of the moderator. In srv for eg, some of the quotes provided on some topic
were not found to be existent in the standard copies. Now IMO, this is
improper justification and there is pretty much no difference between this and
providing _no_ references. Further, some people may feel that the general
experience with other religions is enough justification to propose some
particular view point.
I can't see the debate about this ending even if your view point on posts ws
adopted. The next thing is someone will ask why the correctness of quotes was
not verified! It's never ending.
> i hope i expressed my views above.
I hope I have expressed mine.
> >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?
I have no problems with a CFV. My point is that a moderation rule which allows
for the maximum freedom of speech is most desirable.
> 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.
As I see it both parties are adamant about certain points. I request Ajay Shah
not be intransigent on this issue, and provide a moderation policy. I
understand that he has his suspicions that some of the proponents of the RFD
may be politically motivated. However, if I may offer a suggestion, the
proposers of the RFD and Ajay Shah can agree to some time frame and could Ajay
Shah provide a moderation charter, with the help of his appeals committee? I
trust that this will satisfy both Ajay Shah and the proposers of the RFD. I
hope both parties will not think that because of this compromise that they
have "lost the game" or something like that. Maybe in addition to his current
appeals committee he can invite one of the proponents of the RFD, say Shrisha
or Vivek to also help him in drafting a suitable moderation policy? I would
appreciate it if the moderator voiced his opinions on my suggestion and offer
some alternate compromise arrangement if it does not suit him.
I am getting kind of tired of these arguments. We have been having zilch posts
on Hindu religion. I'll answer a few more posts and then stop.
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
