From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: Improprieties (soc.culture.tamil
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 18:02:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.215722.19279@cbnews.cb.att.com>, rnk@cbnews.cb.att.com (ram.n.kumar) writes:
> In article <1992Aug31.220216.26754@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com
> (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> 
> [Stuff deleted]
> >
> >I don't think any canvassing at all should be done after the issue of CFV.
> >Whether it is negative or positive or whether it is by the vote taker or
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >anyone, it is not good to have it.
> ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^
> >
> I disagree. 
> I used to read SCI a long time ago and gave up for the same reason 
> many others have done so (wars, postings filled with hate, insulting notes 
> (remember the one about "angry" tamils with last names "Air" and "Anger"?)
> etc). When I was told by a friend that a vote was being taken
> on soc.culture.tamil, I was glad and I voted YES. I do now read
> soc.culture.tamil regularly. If my friend had not informed me about the
> vote, I'd never have known and may be (just may be) the proposal would
> have been defeated without my ONE vote! who knows?
> 
> In addition, I believe that he line between "informing" or 'canvassing"
> is very thin. Most of the times, in issues like this people do not just
> "inform" they tend to "selectively inform". Take my friend for example
> (he was not one of the few you named in your posting).
> My friend voted YES, he got another YES vote because he informed me.
> He did not of course inform every non-Tamilian in the neighborhood
> some of whom would probably have voted NO.
> Does that mean he was canvassing or influencing the
> decision by informing those who were more likely to vote YES?
> In a way he was being "selective" about whom he informed, and in a way
> he was "canvassing" unintentionally.

THat is right. He was "canvassing".

> Are you saying that you only object to "intentional" canvassing?
> If not, why is "unintentional" canvassing more acceptable,  given that
> both influence the outcome the same way?

I consider both undesirable during the voting period. People should
be left on their own to decide how to vote or not vote in this period.
If they didn't know about the voting call and they wanted to vote,
it is their problem. They were not participating in the discussion
and probably don't even know what the issues are w.r.t that vote.
Such an 'uneducated' vote could only be based on shallow criterions
like the name of the group ...

> 
> The "none can canvass"  part in your message is fatally flawed.
> In a country where TV commericals are run to encourage people to drink 
> milk, a little canvassing by someone is not bad at all. I see
> nothing wrong with it.

But this group (SCT) is not for USA only ...
It is a worldwide group. Think about this group propagating to INdia.
Don't you think it is going to have more of a divisive effect in
India ? For that matter it is going to have a divisive effect within the
Indian community outside India. It is already having it.
Look at the series of narrow ethnic groups which have been formed
after SCT ( alt.culture.Kerala, soc.culture.indian.telugu, alt.culture.
karnatka, ...). Somebody other day sent me an email that they wanted
to form soc.culture.marathi. 

Is this what you want - fragmentation of Indian culture along the lines
of narrow linguistic divisions ?

In the discussion of SCT, one of the organizers in fact talked about
defanging INdia ...

That type of motivation to form the group is not 'culturally' oriented.
It is simply political.

Imagine coming to USA for studies or work, and engaging in such 
political activities which are targetted to 'defang' your motherland.
Traitors are such people.

> 
> With your no-canvassing approach, only a subset of active SCI readers (active
> at the time the vote is taken) would have had a chance to vote. What about
> the other former SCI readers, a new generation of potential/future
> readers and so on? Who will tell them ?
> 
> 
> >
> >The vote taker's behaviour in case of soc.culture.tamil violated the
> >appearance of the vote taker to be unbiased. After making such biased
> >and improper remarks, he went on to issue the CFV and selected himself
>                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >to be the vote taker.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> 
> I don't know the history. 

YOu should have tried to find out what the group stands for before
you cast your vote.
> All I know is that I voted yes, and enjoy reading 
> soc.culture.tamil. State what you believe to be the correct process to select
> a vote taker. If "he" had asked someone else to be the "vote-taker", you 
> would have said he appointed a "friend" as a vote-taker. Who should then
> appoint the vote taker? God? President Bush? Dan Quayle? You? Do you
> think you should have been the the "vote-taker"? What are your
> qualifications? Should we have had another fair democratic vote on
> who the vote-taker should be (perhaps one non-Tamilian and a Tamilian
> running against each other)? Who'll be the vote taker for that particular
> poll?? Gets both interesting and VERY VERY RECURSIVE....
> 
You are making hundreds of assumption and diversions here.
No, I would have not questioned this vote, if the vote taker did not
make comments like - vote YES only or abstain and the organizers of
the discussion committee did not encourage canvassing of votes
even during the vote-(It was done not one to one, but even by email to bulk
tamilian groups).
 
> It is easy to talk and blame. The fact of the matter is in the corporate 
> world, having a dream and following it through would be called as
> leadership and initiaive. That is what the people who started the
> soc.culture.tamil initiative did. 

An initiative which includes 'defanging' of India, an initiative which
leads to scores of narrow ethnic groups in and around the world, hardly
deserves a praise. What deserves praise is an attempt to bring people
together, not divide them.

> Right now, all you can do is, see how many
> are reading soc.culture.tamil and see if that justifies its existence.
> If you are a Tamil and find that what is being written there to be far worse
> than what is posted on SCI (or against the Tamil culture that it is
> supposed to promote) start a campaign to get rid of it. If you

That is besides the issue here.

> do so, please be careful and do not appoint yourself as vote-taker.
> Also, like you said, do NOT campaign. And ask only Tamils to vote
> and not the "Air-And-Anger" type intellectuals.
> 
It is USENET. Whoevr wants to vote is going to vote.
Your statement reflects lack of knowledge of Usenet group creation
or you are simply being rotten. Why should only Tamilians vote,
when the USENET cost is paid by non-Tamilians as well ?

> 	[Air-And-Anger comes from a mean-spirited joke posted on SCI.
> 	Question:	Why are Tamils Angry?
> 	Answer:		Because they have family names like Air and Anger.
> 			(references to Iyer and Iyengar. The guy who
> 			posted the joke did not even know that much about
> 			Tamils.)]
> 
> Intellectuals like you never posted a follow-up note condemning
> such sick and insulting jokes on SCI. 

I saw this joke for the first time. What makes you think, I am
the guardian of SCI ? Why do I have to go and condemn everything
everywhere ? Did you post a condemnation of Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Elam (LTTE) when Rajiv Gandhi was assasinated by them ?
Did you condemn the killings of rival Tamil group leaders by LTTE ?
Did you condemn the separatist and defanging campaign of
one of the organizers of SCT group ?

(BTW, I do recall of asking on SCI once not to have ethnic jokes).

> And still you seem to play Mr. NiceGuy
> and fume so much over canvassing and vote-taker appointment.
> 
Come on now, these are inappropriate aspects of SCT creation.
People objected to my creation of SCIA so abusively and viciously,
at least I have not resorted to abuse and lies.

Alok
Newsgroups: news.groups