dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) (02/23/90)
In article <sZsU89K00WB9MTUnAx@andrew.cmu.edu> sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) writes: >Talk.politics.south-asia is a proposed newsgroup. There is a need to >discuss political history and events in the south asian region, >primarily in the Indian sub-continent. This newsgroup, >talk.politics.south-asia, will be for articles concerning political >developments and views concerning countries in the region. >Note: The term Sub-continent is used below to refer to the Indian >sub-continent. This includes Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, >Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Also, "s.c.i." means soc.culture.indian, >where political opinions are currently aired. > >Why a Separate Newsgroup? > >Part of the idea is to reduce political postings on s.c.i., which >generate much of the heat on that group, The other is to create a >suitable forum for open discussions on sensitive but important topics. >The talk groups are traditionally unmoderated and of a free nature, >so unpopular postings are less likely to be flamed there just because >they are unpopular (I wish!). That is, nobody will be able to say, >"that's a sensitive topic, so it's best to avoid it" on >talk.politics.south-asia (unless it falls outside the charter---see >below). Also, the word "indian" in s.c.i.'s name have sometimes been >used to suppress postings by other nationals than Indian. This cannot >happen with the neutral name "south-asia." 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? :-] 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? 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. 4. The almost ritual song of deprecation by Indians about other Indians in order to prevent s.c.i.-splintering seems out of place. The most one can hope for is non-moderation, and that is already the case. 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. --dorai -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be that the gulfs will wash us down; It may be we shall touch the Happy Isles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
singh@sierra.Stanford.EDU (Harinder J. Singh) (02/24/90)
In article <5231@brazos.Rice.edu> dorai@titan.rice.edu (Dorai Sitaram) writes: > >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. > Picking on the term `suppression', above, is mere semantics. The key point is that non-Indians have been variously told that their concerns/responses do not belong in s.c.i. Does Dorai wish to suggest that there has been no unfairness and unwarranted abuse towards non-Indians on s.c.i. in recent days? Come on, Dorai, just the facts, remember? >4. The almost ritual song of deprecation by Indians about other >Indians in order to prevent s.c.i.-splintering seems out of place. > I, for one, greatly support the free expression of distaste by some Indians on s.c.i. towards other Indians who've been going un-challenged in spewing their venomous invective. Censure of this sort has a number of sound reasons to validate it - prevention of a splintering of s.c.i. is only one of them and may well have been a moot point by the time the opposing viewpoints were posted. Dorai, you will surely agree that those who dish it out so freely should be able to take a little bit coming back! Si?? Why then these squawks about ``[blah blah blah] by Indians about other Indians...seems out of place??'' If you're so thin-skinned even about other people's [mildly stated] opinions against something you (or someone else) has said, why, that oughta give you pause to ponder before you sling it next time :-) Cheers, Inder