[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
In article <4rr8m8$c69@math.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Vidhyanath K. Rao <vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>Given the extent of time that has passed since the RFD, my memeory is hazy;
>but I don't remember these messages. But I do remember a posted message
>from Shrisha Rao making threats about s.r.h that well predated the RFD.
>
>And another of the proponents, Mani Varadarajan, had publically
>campaigned for defeating s.r.h with Ajay Shah as moderator. Given this,
>I am not so sanguine that personal feelings had no part in the reorg
>proposal.
I am sure you also recall Vidyasankar Sundaresan's posting in this
regard. Or would you assign him a motive as well? I simply fail to
understand why it is that the motive (or rather, the alleged motive)
of the proponents is more important than the effect it has.
>Another point that I had made and which is now being made is this:
>The reorg proposal allowed one moderator to be removed by other moderators.
>Given this, can we trust the moderators propsed in the RFD not to
>get rid of Mr. Shah as soon the new newsgroups were created?
This point has been answered previously as well, but no matter; let's
go over it again.
As a point of fact, the proposed moderators are nobody's fools, least
of all the proponents', and it cannot be reasonably asserted that they
will do any such thing as you suggest -- even granting that the
proponents have an agenda and that no good can come from it. Second,
the RFD asserts that all disputes between moderators (and an unfair
dismissal of a moderator certainly qualifies, wouldn't you say?) will
be subject to binding arbitration by moderators-advice, who again
cannot be reasonably expected to endorse any such action. As such,
where is the basis for this objection?
>Perhaps this is the case where parallel newsgroups must exist for awhile
>so the readers can exercise their choice. There is too much bad blood here
>for the current RFD to be considered balanced.
Having parallel groups would make some sense, but given that the
powers that be have decided to stick to their previous ill-informed
choices and assertions -- even if it involves continually building
newer and ever-more spurious arguments out of whole cloth and
contradicting themselves over and over -- I don't expect it to
happen.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>--
>Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
>nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
>(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
