[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
Namaskar,
Here is my response to some of the points raised by Shrisha Raoji.
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, Shrisha Rao wrote:
> In article <ghenDtz5u4.6JD@netcom.com>,
> Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
> I beg to differ. The newsgroup was *NOT* created in its present form:
> it had no moderation policy statement in the CFV (which is quite
> amazing, if you think of it), and the moderation policy has been added
> completely later, and amended in bits and pieces continually by a
> process that has never been clarified.
This is not true at all. The CFV was *posted* by the vote taker without
the charter, although it was submitted with one. This mistake, when
realized, the vote taker cancelled the original CFV, and CFV was re-posted.
>
> It should interest you to know that the only reason for the reorg
> being junked is that *I* stood up for the word `Indian' during the
> saga of the soc.culture.indian.jammu-kashmir proposal. Tale finally
> threw away the mask and stated that he was tired of how much work I
> had caused for all those involved in newsgroup creation, etc. (he
> apparently had no memory of having appreciated my cooperation); he was
> clearly reducing it to a one-to-one thing, and because he didn't like
> me over SCI.J-K, the reorg wasn't on. Everything else is just so much
> chaff presented for the uninformed.
I, along with all the other Hindus and Indians who support the
cause of Bharat and Kashmir, dispite disagreement with you on SRH re-org
supported the SCI-JK newsgroup. Kashmir to me, and I contend, to most
people from Bharat, is not a political issue, but the issue of integrity
of our motherland. You might recall our personal e-mail exchanges on
this issue, where I offered all my support for SCI-JK.
Afer all, I have written and published a book on Kashmir titled
"Our Kashmir" in 1990.
I might add that I sought similar sentiments of unity, when I expressed my
opinion that the Vaishnavas are Hindus, which many of the proponents of the
soc.religion.vaishnava vehemently rejected.
> Your "conclusive proof" has been debunked so many times, and you've
> never quite managed to come up with a reasonable rebuttal of any kind.
Actually, one of the first postings, which suggested re-org of SRH, based
on my position of Vaishnava being part of Hindu originated from
Shrishaji. Some of the readers of SRH posted this on SRH during the
debate. This posting is available in the SRH archives.
> Commendable. But why didn't you tell the readers of SRH this before
> the reorg, or even during? They come last?
Please refer to the SRH re-org in the archives. I had made this point
during the debate.
> Not quite. Why is it that initial approvals are not to be done by
> them? Are you against that? Having more people doing initial
> approvals would improve turnaround times for postings.
There has not been any credible complaints about the posting delays.
There are 4-6 (mostly 5) postings a week. Consistent with most of the
moderated newsgroups. Again, please refer to the archives for the proof.
> Then again, it is unjust to the readers who may have to tolerate
> greater delay than necessary (especially in case of h/w outages such
Even with the hardware related delays, since we now have one main and two
backup accounts, this problem has been addressed. Also, please note that
there has not been a single week when I did not post 4-6 times a week.
Consistent with almost all the other newsgroups.
> as you've experienced), and it's also unjust to you since you have to
> continually face the prospect of three others watching over your
> shoulder all the time, three others who aren't equals, and who do not
> have a day-to-day grasp of what the job takes.
I believe that unfairness in moderation has never been a problem with
SRH, and just in case, there are genuine problems that a reader may have,
this mechanism will address them, although I must say that other than the
some of the re-org proponents, who have a personal vendetta against my
stand on Vaishnava being a part of Hindu dharma and society, there have
not been complaints about unfairness.
[stuff about GHEN sponsorship of SRH deleted]
To clarify : GHEN plays no role in the moderation of SRH. GHEN does
not sponsor moderation of SRH, just the hardware support for SRH.
GHEN provides free web space to *any* Hindu organization as a service to
community, and many postings offering this service have appeared on
newsgroups. Currently, the organizations utilizing this service include
e.g., to Mata Amritananda Mayi Center, [proposed] American Gita Society,
American Vedic Institute [site under preparation], Sanskrit Bharati,
mirror to jaguar site, [proposed] Yoga Institute, etc. GHEN also offers
mail re-direction to some Hindu organization. GHEN gets noting
in return. That is the nature of selfless service in Hindu dharma, and
GHEN offers it. I believe that your innuendos in this regards is noting but
cheap shots at the community service undertaken by GHEN.
Just as the same individual sponsoring the SRV archives and home pages
of some other Hindu organization or temple does not indicate correlation
the same applies here.
>
> Since you have conveniently decided to stick to the solo moderator
> position and ignored all well-reasoned arguments, "the motives can be
> obviously assigned."
>
My contention still remains. The proponents and vocal supporters of SRV
who happen to be proponents and supporters of SRH re-org seek different
standards for both the groups. Please refer to the SRH re-org debate for
further analogies.
> group? Even assuming that your little kingdom is not to be disturbed
> at any cost, that still is eminently fair.
Now this to me seems like a little personal attack. I do not think that
I have ever treated SRH as a personal kingdom. It has been your repeated
position, not mine. I consider to be my social responsibility. I did not
create alt.hindu and did not propose soc.religion.hindu because I was in
need for a kingdom, but I saw that there had been a need for this
newsgroup, and while all the major religions in the world had newsgroups
Hindu did not.
regards,
ajay shah
ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
References:
