[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of soc.religion.hindu
In article <ghenDtryJI.7Bp@netcom.com>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>To be fair, _some_ of the moderators, IMO, on the basis of the evidence I saw,
>did not have personal vendetta. However, I am afraid the same can't be said of
>every one.
Let's accept that, for argument's sake. But, can one ever carry out
*any* activity or project involving the interests or participation of
many, if one needs to certify the characters and motivation of
everyone involved?
Obviously, the answer is that one cannot look at motivations only, or
even primarily: one has to look at whether or not the exercise is
worthwhile, whatever be anyone's motives. This is exactly the point
that Vidyasankar made back in January.
>I'd like to point out here that I was one of those people who voted YES for
>srv. However, I was and am still against the RFD in it's present form. I
>clearly noted my objections and no answers were given, other than some hand
>waving arguments.
I am very keen to learn of your objections, if you would care to state
them again. Otherwise, just point me to the correct URLs and I will
read them and respond.
>Though, I am still not able to see the vaishnava-but-not-hindu argument and
>how racial characteristics may make one a vaishnava but not hindu, I was still
>willing to give the benefit of doubt to the vaishnavas and voted YES for the
>group. It was quite disappointing that some of the points in the moderation
>rules were explicitly targeted at Ajay's political leanings. If anyone doesn't
>like the politics+religion mixture, they can disregard the posts, as simple as
>that. Now, please don't point out the "talk" group. I voiced my objections
>against that separately. The moderated ng would provide some sane discussion
>of political+religious issues unlike the culture groups.
First of all, the question whether Vaishnava = Hindu, or not, is
essentially outside the issues; the "racial characteristics" thing has
been beaten to death, and in fact came from an innocent comment from
Sue Breish (who is not, and has not been, part of the SRH reorg
exercise). And as has been stated, it is quite a fact, whether one
likes it or not -- witness the fact that so many devout people have
been denied entry into famous temples because of their skin color.
Even the Supreme Court has equated the quality of being Hindu with
that of being Indian. As such, it cannot be denied that according to
*some* people at least, racial characteristics are the primary, or
even sole, consideration for deciding who is Hindu and who not.
And I don't accept that any of the proposed moderation policy
statements was targeted at *Ajay's* political views -- they could at
best be said to be uniformly biased against *all* political views.
And in fact, the kind of politics+religion mix that you envision would
have been allowed -- what was not to be considered was purely
political postings. This was clarifed before, as I recall.
>> The fact that the re-org move started within two months of the
>> formation of SRH, and right after the formation of srv, based on
>> the posts during the srv voting, is in itself conclusive proof that
>> the SRH re-org move was based on personal vendetta and petty politics.
>>
>> However, I believe that re-hashing this old debate is quite futile.
>
>Correct.
However, it may be as well to rest the issue with no doubts remaining
as to the facts; as I have said before, I believe the reorg to be dead
due to external and essentially-irrelevant considerations such as my
role in proposing SCI.J-K, but one dislikes to part with a feeling of
having left the job incomplete.
>> However, now, with these problems behind us, I am very pleased to anounce that
>> I am forming a Moderation Appeals Committee, consisting of three members
>>
>> These three are :
>>
>> Rajan Parrikar
>> Dhruba Chakrabarty and
>> Nachiketa Tiwari
>
>[snip]
>
>> I hope that this is the last positng I have to make on this topic, and
>> that we can all use our time more constructively, in propagating Hindu
>> dharma on the net.
>
>Why can't the proponents of the RFD join in now and try to offer further
>suggestions now? I hope Ajay will accept them in good spirit and examine their
>merits and demerits objectively.
Good idea. I will try to think constructively and see if I can come
up with something. But I for one would have liked the *.info group --
it has a definite clientele, and I do know people who do not read the
main group because of too much noise, who would read an *.info group.
Oh well...
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>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
>--
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
