sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/24/90)
dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) makes some good points: > 1. South Asia is too much of a superset if you're only going to > discuss politics in the subcontinent. Why not call the group > talk.politics.subcontinent or .subcont? (Of course, people _could_ > confuse that with the other subcontinent, Greenland (where a lot of > politics takes place!), and "Indian subcontinent" fails your > neutrality test.) How about talk.politics.gondwanaland? :-] No problems with this name, either, except that "subcontinent" is, as you yourself point out, hardly a unique region... (sigh) this name thing is quite a problem. Anyone else have any better ideas? South asia still seems like an imperfect but good enough solution. > 2. The anguish expressed in s.c.i. has been more over politics than > over culture. So what is a common _politics_ group going to solve? > If we're combatting acrimony in newsgroups, why is shifting it from > soc. to talk. such a win? The idea is to *separate* political debates from the rest, because political debates 1) tend to be especially acrimonious, 2) are disliked by a good subset of s.c.i.-ers, 3) are liked by another (disjoint) subset (well... disjoint at a given point in time---I think you know what I mean, Dorai), 4) don't belong in a soc. group, and 5) do belong in a talk group (I know these aren't rules, just Usenet guidelines, but see below for another justification). > 3. I find it hard to believe that postings by non-Indians "have been > suppressed in s.c.i." S.c.i. is an unmoderated group. The presence > of acrimony doesn't imply suppression of views, rather the opposite. Yes, but when debates fall to slinging matches with personal name-calling (which seems to happen particularly with political topics), people aren't exactly being encouraged to post unpopular opinions. OK, maybe "suppressed" was too strong a word, so I'll change that in the CFD. > 4. The almost ritual song of deprecation by Indians about other > Indians in order to prevent s.c.i.-splintering seems out of place. Hey, wait a minute---are you accusing me of deprecating other Indians? And of *opposing* splintering?! I'm proposing a new newsgroup! (And it's not just me---there was a long debate on news.groups, and I finally said if it was just a question of somebody taking the initiative I was willing, and there was plenty of support). > 5. If you're trying to halt the splintering of s.c.i. into national > subgroups, the battle appears to have been lost. Let's not be so > deeply sensitive that some folks want to start their own group. It is > their prerogative. And if you're trying to banish acrimony from a > newsgroup, a newsgroup is not a pleasant soiree where everyone is > expected to be nice over tea and crumpets, and it is unrealistic to > hope for that. I've already said your "if" clause is false---we're not trying to stop splintering or anything. Your other point about the net not being a goody-goody place is well taken. I love fierce arguments, too---only soc.culture.indian is not the best place for it. All we want is to keep s.c.i. as free of politics as possible by setting up a separate group where people can vent their fury. The talk hierarchy is meant for acrimonious debate; the soc hierarchy is not. It's unfair on those people who just want to read some news from back home and exchange a little info and names of books, interesting cultural events, etc., to have to go through truckloads of noise every day, and it's also unfair on those people who really want to talk about politics with others like them to have to use s.c.i. and get flamed for posting political discussions. A separate politics group sounds like a win both ways. So creating this new group still sounds like a good idea to me. I was hoping to clarify a few points to everyone and "win you over," Dorai. Have I succeeded? Sudheer. ----------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) (02/25/90)
In article <0ZtK56e00WB90MQJJ8@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: >dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) makes some good points: > >The idea is to *separate* political debates from the rest, because >political debates >1) tend to be especially acrimonious, >2) are disliked by a good subset of s.c.i.-ers, I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. I am not at all sure that another group is warranted, a solution to acrimony in s.c.i., or even that acrimony is such a bad thing. If the passion that gives vent to the acrimony were tempered with a little reason, we might one day have some understanding. > Sudheer. >----------------- >...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z >sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET Srinath srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu
sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/25/90)
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: > In article <0ZtK56e00WB90MQJJ8@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu > (Sudheer Apte) writes: > >The idea is to *separate* political debates from the rest, because > >political debates > >1) tend to be especially acrimonious, > >2) are disliked by a good subset of s.c.i.-ers, > > I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved > Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, > since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. Yes, and before Kashmir it was the elections, and before that it was the Nepal embargo, and before that it was the '71 war... in what sense are these topics "cultural" by any stretch of the imagination? We're not saying, "don't discuss these problems," or that they're not important---only that they deserve to be discussed on another newsgroup, not on s.c.i. You left out that part of my posting where I pointed out that the soc hierarchy is not meant for such debate, and that the talk tree is. Or are you denying that many s.c.i.-ers don't want to read long political debates? And that they are justified? And that those who want to will also be better served by their own group? > I am not at all sure that another group is warranted, a solution to > acrimony in s.c.i., or even that acrimony is such a bad thing. If > the passion that gives vent to the acrimony were tempered with a > little reason, we might one day have some understanding. This group is not meant to be a "solution" to acrimony! Quite the opposite---it will encourage people to debate these issues. Only the forum won't be s.c.i.: it will be our own newsgroup, a talk newsgroup, where heated debates have their place. I'd be the first to agree that acrimony is not a bad thing, especially, as you point out, if done with a little reason. What is bad is that plenty of uninterested people have to wade through it every day searching for a scrap of news or an interesting tidbit. And that the interested debators don't have their own newsgroup and are forced to use s.c.i. to reach their audience, and get flamed for doing it. I hope I've been able to explain the idea a little better. Do you think the charter needs to be modified to clarify this point? Thanks, Sudheer. ----------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) (02/27/90)
In Article <QZtzVeW00WB9I2mlAo@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes >srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: >> >> I would venture to say that most of the acrimony has involved >> Kashmir, which in turn has involved religion and in some sense culture, >> since it seems about to spawn soc.culture.pakistan. >Yes, and before Kashmir it was the elections, and before that it was >the Nepal embargo, and before that it was the '71 war... in what sense >are these topics "cultural" by any stretch of the imagination? We're >not saying, "don't discuss these problems," or that they're not >important---only that they deserve to be discussed on another >newsgroup, not on s.c.i. You left out that part of my posting where I >pointed out that the soc hierarchy is not meant for such debate, and >that the talk tree is. Or are you denying that many s.c.i.-ers don't >want to read long political debates? And that they are justified? >And that those who want to will also be better served by their own >group? It may be that your memory is better than mine, but I don't remember as much acrimony in the Indo-Nepal embargo debate as in the Kashmir debate or the cricket debate, for example. Also, would discussions of Indian elections really be the place for t.p.sa. It would seem to me that t.p.sa should confine itself to discussions of political developments that affect more than one country in the region. My response was mainly prompted by your reiteration that t.p.sa would address the acrimony in s.c.i. I fully believe that that is the wrong reason to form a new group. Good reasons might be a) political discussion is beginning to so overwhelm s.c.i. that other topics are becoming impossible to discuss, b) certain discussions don't fall within the charter. I do not believe that the discussions that have contributed the most to the acrimony are purely political in nature. On the other hand, they have almost always been India vs. Pakistan. The discussions on cricket are a good example. Thus, I do not believe that forming a new group, especially one that claims to legitimize India or Pakistan bashing (which is what most of the acrimony in s.c.i. consists of), is healthy, or a solution. >I hope I've been able to explain the idea a little better. Do you >think the charter needs to be modified to clarify this point? IMHO, yes. I think it would be better to state the objectives as what it will do within the confines of t.p.sa, rather than what it will do for s.c.i. >Thanks, > Sudheer. >----------------- >...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z >sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET Regards, Srinath srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu
sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/27/90)
srinath@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Srinath Viswanathan) writes: > It would seem to me that t.p.sa should confine itself to discussions > of political developments that affect more than one country in the > region. I can understand this, but we have differing opinions here. I feel t.p.sa. should be open to all political *discussions*, whether internal or international. (Of course, *news* of current events and historical *information* do belong on s.c.i.) If enough people take exception to this, though, we can still reconsider this question. Anyone? > My response was mainly prompted by your reiteration that t.p.sa > would address the acrimony in s.c.i. I fully believe that that is the > wrong reason to form a new group. Point taken! Also, you're right that all acrimony on s.c.i. is not due to political discussions alone. This implication needs to be removed from the charter. > [...] > > >I hope I've been able to explain the idea a little better. Do you > >think the charter needs to be modified to clarify this point? > > IMHO, yes. I think it would be better to state the objectives > as what it will do within the confines of t.p.sa, rather than what > it will do for s.c.i. Yes, this makes sense, too---emphasizing the positive aspects of what *should* go on t.p.sa rather than what shouldn't go on s.c.i. Thanks for the input; the next version of the charter will be a kinder, gentler one! :-) Sudheer. ----------------- ...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET