sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte) (02/23/90)
The following is the talk.politics.south-asia discussion to date on
news.groups, in digest form. This way everyone won't have to keep
track of that newsgroup. Note that followups have been set to
news.groups.
Sudheer.
----------------
...{harvard, uunet}!andrew.cmu.edu!sa1z
sa1z%andrew@CMCCVB.BITNET
Digest-Date: 22-Feb-90
------------------------------
From: Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@ads.com>
<9002210527.AA07743@saturn.ads.com>
Why Nepal but not Tibet? Have you consigned a once free people to
perpetual servitude?
---------------------------------
From: sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sudheer Apte)
<AZsdCfe00WB4M2QFRA@andrew.cmu.edu>
I sympathize with the Tibetans, and of course they would be welcome on
such a group; listing Tibet with de facto nations, though, is making a
strong political statement at the outset! But I see your point---the
current charter excludes discussions on Tibetan affairs vis a vis
China. If there's enough demand we could expand the charter to
include such discussions. Is this a good idea, people?
Sudheer.
----------------
----------------------------------
From: Dinesh K. Prabhu <prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
<9002212137.AA29618@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>
Hi Sudheer,
I forgot to mention one other thing regarding t.p.s-asia. Please save all
the discussion articles and e-mail pertaining to this topic. It'll come in
handy. Save it until the newsgroup gets created.
Dinesh
--------------------------------------
From: dheeraj@saryu.cs.umd.edu (Dheeraj Sanghi)
<22659@mimsy.umd.edu>
How about the name soc.culture.saarc or talk.politics.saarc.
Saarc is South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose members are
Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives. This
would be on the same lines as s.c.asean.
In fact, I would suggest we have two newsgroups s.c.saarc and t.p.saarc.
We can remove s.c.indian and s.c.sri-lanka and also not create s.c.pakistan.
This way, we can take care of problem of too much politics in the
s.c.i as well as not discourage non-Indian issues in s.c.i (for there will
be no s.c.i).
-dheeraj
---------------------------------
From: Sudheer Apte <sa1z+@andrew.cmu.edu>
<IZsjUEy00WB8E9fV0w@andrew.cmu.edu>
dheeraj@saryu.cs.umd.edu (Dheeraj Sanghi) writes:
> How about the name soc.culture.saarc or talk.politics.saarc. Saarc
> is South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation, whose members
> are Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and
> Maldives. This would be on the same lines as s.c.asean.
Sounds good to me. Anyone have problems with "talk.politics.saarc"?
We can easily make this the name of the newsgroup.
> In fact, I would suggest we have two newsgroups s.c.saarc and t.p.saarc.
> We can remove s.c.indian and s.c.sri-lanka and also not create s.c.pakistan.
> This way, we can take care of problem of too much politics in the
> s.c.i as well as not discourage non-Indian issues in s.c.i (for there will
> be no s.c.i).
I wish we could do this, but I doubt if the s.c.i and s.c.s-l-ers will
take such a suggestion very well. Any comments? Also,
soc.culture.saarc sounds a little bogus, because SAARC is a political
association, having nothing to do with culture (isn't it?) This is
why I hadn't liked s.c.asean either. But I'm still open.
Thanks for the input, Dheeraj. Is anyone listening, or are we talking
amongst ourselves?!
Sudheer.
----------------
---------------------------------
From: srivatsa@smsun4.crd.ge.com (Rajan Srivatsan)
<9002211720.AA23902@smsun4.crd.Ge.Com>
Dear Mr. Sudheer Apte,
Thank you for taking the initiative to create this
news group. It is high time we rid "soc.culture.indian" of the endless
political bickering. You can count on my vote when the time comes.
Regards,
R. Srivatsan/..--
----------------------------------------------
From: siddarth@cs.utexas.edu (Siddarth Subramanian)
<675@ai.cs.utexas.edu>
My problem with the name saarc is that it is a political association. Now,
for example, if Pakistan leaves saarc, would the charter of the group be
similarly restricted ? What's wrong with the original suggestion with
south-asia being defined as the current members of saarc (with maybe Tibet
thrown in). I think using the name of a political association in the name
of a newsgroup is not a good idea.
>I wish we could do this, but I doubt if the s.c.i and s.c.s-l-ers will
>take such a suggestion very well. Any comments?
The suggestion sounds good except that as you point out there will be too
much resistance to it. I think a lot of the people who decry non-Indian
postings on s.c.i. are going to be the ones who will insist on a
Pakistani-free Sri-lankan-free s.c.i.
>... are we talking among ourselves ?
I'm here, but I suspect most s.c.i'ers don't subscribe to news.groups.
If you want more input, cross-post.
--
SIDDARTH SUBRAMANIAN siddarth@cs.utexas.edu