[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Disruption on SRH
In article <ghenDw5Lnw.I2F@netcom.com>,
Sabberwal Suraj <sabberwa@NCSMSG02TR.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
>
>Namaste,
>
>I represent one of the silent majority on SRH. Ever since I first
>"discovered" this site in April 1996, I have enjoyed reading a number of
>articles - some which come to my mind immediately are the discourses on the
>Bhagwad Gita (Gita Sandesh), discussions regarding the Gayatri Mantra and
>the Vedas.
>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. Quite frankly, I must admit that Mr. Vivek Sadanand Pai and
>Mr. Sishir occupy the top of this list.
sir, i shall be greatful if you say that you represent the silent
"majority" *based* on facts. The discussion on SRH reorganization has
been on the srh in recent weeks, due to the moderator *blocking*
the formal call for votes (CFV) to get the figures on how many
support the reorganization and how many oppose it. the present
discussion is basically not an RFD discussion about merits and
demerits of the proposal, since such a discussion already took
place longer than usual, but rather about the blocking of taking
a vote. it *may* even turn out that you were right about majority
view, but only if CFV is not blocked and a vote is taken.
i am not aware of existence of a moderation *team*, and my belief
is that there is only one single moderator at present. the team of
moderators is *proposed* in the reorganization proposal.
>I 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 issues.
Actually, "Vaishnavas as Hindus or non- Hindus" and "ISKCON followers
as Hindus or non-Hindus" are *indeed* irrelevant to srh-reorganization
discussion. but, quite often these accusations against the proponents
are made by those *opposing* reorganization and they (the proponents)
have only been "responding".
>I fail to understand why the current moderation team doesn't trash messages
>alleging that moderators are hand picked !!! Such messages should be
>confined to dustbins.
My own understanding is that the RFD discussion is to be carried out
away from srh, but moderator's actions w.r.t. srh are *on*-topic to
srh. and since the present discussion is *not* RFD debate, but about
blocking of CFV by moderator, i thought this discussion is appropriate.
>As for Mr. Vivek Sadanand Pai allegations regarding my personal
>contribution, here are the statistics from my "Sent Box" ::
>Total articles contributed since mid-April - 9 ( 2 main articles, 5
>rejoinders to people who replied to my main articles and 2 articles to
>people who want to disrupt proceedings on SRH ) - article addressed to Mr.
>Pai on SRH to stop playing "VENDETTA POLITICS on SRH " included.
if you kindly do a similar analysis on the proponents of reorg, you
will also conclude that their contribution to *religious* discussion
has been very much and of high value. yes they have also been very
strong contributors to the srh-reorg debate, but that should be
expected since they *have* to discuss the proposal they propose.
>I like reading the articles on SRH because they sharpen my 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"
like you, i too love to read articles on hindu dharma. the proposal for
reorganisation is intended to creat three separate news groups such that
we will have
one groups for religious discussion that fit high standards of a
moderated group,
one group for making announcements about books, web pages, meetings,
lectures etc.
one group for all other articles that do not meet the requirements of
moderated discussion and for free-for-all debates.
i shall appreciate if you kindly read the original proposal for
reorg.
>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."
it would be nice if we can avoid expressions such as "Dirty politics"
and "deceit" in our discussions. the supporters contend that the
reorg is for good of srh, and you seem to believe otherwise. the best
way to know what the majority of the readers want is merely be
taking a vote -- a logical conclusion of the prolonged RFD debate,
that ended much before --*probably*-- you started reading srh.
>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".
this is one of those good points of the reorg proposal sir. the
moderated group will under the reorg plan would not allow *pure*
political articles on the main srh.moderated group. purely
political articles will go to the unmoderated group. so that
srh will be a forum for discussion with *religious* focus.
>regards
>Suraj
kindly read the proposal for details.
[just to let possible new comers know: i am not a proponent of the
proposal, but merely a supporter]
regards
gopal
