[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Status on RFD on reorganization of Soc.Religion.Hindu
[ will be posted to srh separately]
In article <ghenDu9s2A.147@netcom.com>,
Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>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.
As far as my understanding goes, the post of Shrisha Rao you are
referrig to is *not* a reaction to your insistence on inclusiion
of work hindu in srv. instead that post in question was critical
of you for certain mal-practices w.r.t. srv vote.
(1) after the discussion period of SRV is over, you started
posting on groups that did *not* discuss the RFD on srv, and
signing as *mderator srh* but claiming that the post was your
personal opinion. You know very well that the proponents have
very limited freedom, since they are bound to follow usenet
guidelines. as a moderator, you knew these constrainsts very
well, but you chose to post any way on the groups that did
not discuss the original RFD. ACtually the issue of inclusion of
hindu was discussed during the RFD phase, but, as if you are not
aware of it you commenced the RFD debate ab-initio, *after*
the RFD period was over.
(2) JM made extensive campaign by sending unsolicited mails
asking for voting down srv, and claiming that his email campaign
has *your* approval, and you refused to set the record straight
*immediately* .There were several complaints posted to net-abuse
groups against this email campagin against usenet voting guidelines.
(3) As a moderator of srh, you have allowed a post on srh
by JM asking for formation of a vote-block to vote down any
proposals that do not meet his tastes and preferences. This
runs contrary to the spriti of usenet vote. I am not aware if
you ever apologised for this
but in any case, even in the very post of Shrisha that you are
making reference to, he said clearly, that he has no objection
to your being on the moderator panel, and he does not mind
who the moderators are. he just suggested a reorganization that
would have a clear cut guidelines in the charter.
and just to remind you: the proposal is much broader than merely
taking a few moderators. the anti-islamic propaganda which should
not belong to a moderated *hindu* group but has been appearing
consistently, for example, would not be allowed upon reorg.
a hindu group should be for discussing about hindu-dharma, and
for a inter-religious cross talk for learning. but, it should
never be used to put down other religions.
[....]
>Now this to me seems like a little personal attack. I do not think that
>I have ever treated SRH as a personal kingdom.
i believed until recently. but in a recent post you declared
that any reorganization can not see light of the day without
the current moderator's (your) consent. This sounds -- as clear
as a bell -- that you dont care for the majority opinion of the
readership, and you will personally and *individually* decide
what the readers should get, without allowing the opinions to
be expressed by a vote. what great proof is needed to say whether
or not you treat 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.
>
Now, sit back and think: did the proponents proposed reorg for
getting kingdom for them? if so, why would they propose such
a reorg that they will have *no* say in the group functioning?
they have not proposed themselves as moderators.
If nothing makes it clear to you, think about these:
(1) the original post in which they suggested a reog, they said
you can continue as moderator.
(2) before releasing the RFD, they sent in the proposal for your
suggestions
(3) before releasing the RFD they asked you to continue as one
of the moderators
(4) and in a compromise plan i suggested that you can even pick
2 moderator, besides you, out of totally 5 thus making sure that
you still have majority control on the group, but you never
even attempted to comment on the proposal, even though people
completely neutral to srh have also commended the proposal.
(5) now you are saying that *reog* can not take place without
your consent!!
