[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Disruption on SRH
Sabberwal Suraj wrote:
>I represent one of the silent majority on SRH. Ever since I first
>"discovered" this site in April 1996,
No offense, but if you've just been around since April 1996, and you
haven't read through the archives, may I suggest that you somewhat
ill-informed?
>However, of late, I am sick and tired of people who are trying to turn
>this great forum into a political battlefield to "settle scores" with
>the current moderation team.
A few points:
a) if you don't know the history of how this discussion came to SRH,
please check the archives. Normally, when a RFD is floated, the
standard procedure is to confine discussion to a newsgroup called
news.groups. However, in this case, the moderator explicitly
brought the discussion onto SRH.
b) there is no current moderation team. If you want to claim that you
know enough about the situation to determine right and wrong, does
it not seem odd that you don't even know the basics?
>Quite frankly, I must admit that
>Mr. Vivek Sadanand Pai and Mr. Sishir occupy the top of this list. I
Again, I must point out your lack of familiarity with the issues.
>fail to understand why such people keep on bringing up the issue of
>SRH re-organization, Vaishnavas as Hindus or non- Hindus, ISKON
>followers as Hindus or non-Hindus - all DISRUPTIVE and DIVISIVE
Here we go again:
a) none of the reorg proponents brought the Hindu vs Vaishnava issue
up in this discussion. It was raised by people who sought to accuse
the proponents of attacking SRH. They claimed that the proponents
were not Hindus, and they were the ones who claimed that there was
some idea battle between Vaishnavas and Hindus.
b) Likewise with the ISKCON issue - the opponents of the reorg have
been trying to put pressure on the proponents through various
means. If you check the archives of SRH, you will find a long
article where I discuss a meeting I had with some local VHP members
about SRH. They had been told to oppose the reorg, and they had
been told that there was ISKCON involvement. If you do a search,
look for the name "Vijay Pallod," and that will show what I'm
talking about.
>issues. I fail to understand why the current moderation team doesn't
>trash messages alleging that moderators are hand picked !!! Such
Again, you seem to be very unfamiliar with the issues.
>As for Mr. Vivek Sadanand Pai allegations regarding my personal
>contribution, here are the statistics from my "Sent Box" :: Total
[...]
>understanding of THE HINDU DHARMA; of late, however Mr. Pai and
>Mr. Sishir's articles on SRH would sharpen the understanding of people
>who would like to "PLAY VENDETTA POLITICS"
Let me ask you this - try to find the number of articles by the
opponents of the reorg which actually discuss the proposal itself, and
then compare that number to the ones which attack the proponents of
the reorg.
Better yet, find any post by the current moderator which discusses any
merits of the reorg proposal or which talks about any of the
compromise proposals which had been floated.
Then, compare these to the posts which end with the moderator accusing
people of "personal politics". Ask yourself why there have been so
many posts geared toward attacking the proponents, and why there have
been so few discussing the proposal or compromise solutions.
>My request to such people, yet once again:: Don't bring in your DIRTY
>POLITICS on SRH under the guise of "improving SRH ". Please don't try
>to fool others on this forum into believing that you are trying to
>improve SRH - even a school boy can "see through your game of deceit
>and politics."
Perhaps, then, you've been deceived quite well. If you believe that
nothing of the reorg is worthwhile, then ask yourself why other people
have noticed that the delay on SRH has dropped dramatically since the
reorg proposal was announced. Better yet, ask yourself why so many
policy questions have still gone unanswered for _current_ policies
which were announced.
>Bottom line of my message - Let the current moderation team do their
>job on SRH and don't turn a religious forum into a "political one".
Odd that you should mention that, because, you see, this was one of
the topics of the discussion - the political articles on SRH. The
proposal would create a "talk" group where purely political articles
could be discussed, yet even this aspect of the proposal has been
attacked. Recently, I even pointed out one of the articles which I
felt had no religious content and was purely political, yet you
apparently did not comment on that.
See the reorg FAQ for more of the story, and dig through the archives
if you want the complete picture. The FAQ can be found at
http://www-ece.rice.edu/~vijaypai/srh-faq.html Before you go about
accusing others, please check your facts and make sure you know the
entire story.
-Vivek
