The serch for the missing moderator
Cynthia R. Sulaiman
References: <CMGrE...@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
<2m5587$5...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU> <2m702p$e...@news.nd.edu>
<2m81rg$1...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In article <2m81rg$1...@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu>,
Basalat Ali Raja <gwy...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <2m702p$e...@news.nd.edu>,
>Milind Saraph <mil...@agni.cc.nd.edu> wrote:
>BAR>For example, you will find that most of the articles
>BAR>currently posted in SRI are being approved by Dr. Salman Azhar...
>
>>I dont think so. From a post on SRI, it seem that Ms Sulaiman was having
>>difficulty in posting so Dr. Salman Azhar was posting the articles approved
>>by her.
>
>I am afraid you are mistaken. Look at any of the following articles
>from SRI:
>
<stuff deleted>
>
>You will find that each one of these have the following "Approved" line:
>
>Approved: az...@duke.cs.duke.edu
>
>You do not need to take my word for any of this, you can check in the
>soc.religion.islam newsgroup for yourself. The article IDs that I
WHY DON'T YOU CHECK WITH ME?? You have not, in fact the only one who
has is Greg Woods,,,and I explained the problem to him.
NOT ONE OF YOU THAT HAS A PROBLEM HAS DIRECTED ANYTHING TO ME...BUT
HELD AN ARGUMENT BEHIND MY BACK. Just as you are doing now. Y
You Mr. Raja, are disparaging me and my name and my honor. You have
not contacted me nor allowed me due process. You have fought your
"battle" behind my back. Under Islamic law you do NOT have the right to
do that.
>have given are only a small sample. So far, every single article that
>has been posted in SRI since the old moderators stepped down bears the
>above approval stamp.
>
>It has been pointed out to Dr. Azhar that he is in direct contravention
>of his own edict:
>
> To further ensure that objectivity
> is maintained the Shura members have barred themselves from
> being appointed as SRI moderators or to be associated with SRI
> in any official capacity for a period of six months from the
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> date of this decision.
>
>When he was contacted, he responded that Ms. Sulaiman's site was down;
>therefore, he had been posting articles for her. As it so happens, he
>must have forgotten that the site that Ms. Sulaiman uses is GNU, which
>happens to be the same site as I use. And this site has NOT gone
>down.
>
>Even were his story credible and GNU had been off the air for the past
>week, the fact still remains that posting articles for a moderator
>does mean that you are acting in an official capacity, irregardless of
>whether or not you are a moderator yourself.
First off there are several machines that operate at GNU. If the reader
doesn't believe me try : telnet gnu.ai.mit.edu
you will see several gates listed.... one of those gates is Spiff, the only
machine that has access to usenet.
You can get onto GNU using any of the gates..but you can't use usenet.
Mr. B. A. Raja has super user priviledges at GNU and can by pass ANY
problem that arises at GNU and any of it's machines.
I have no such priviledges....if I cannot telnet into spiff from my
home account then I cannot post articles. my telnets to this machine
timed out.
When, for the second time I asked Salam Azhar for help it was 3 am...
I had already been on the computer for three hours and all my
options were gone ... I did not wish to spring more than 20 articles
on Nauman
without asking, and the 48 hr deadline for aritcle resolution was
upon me. Since Salman had help me, before, I knew he'd help me again.
Also there is a system which allows moderators to post 30 articles
within minutes..not hours as you have to do manually. I have all
but one file for that system....without that file the system won't
run. I have been trying to get that file for three days now.
Why don't I ask Mr. B. A. Raja for help (after all as he said he is
on GNU and he was a moderator, and he did use the system)? Because
he demanded that I have no contact with him...which until the last
few hours of today I have been honoring.
>
>The Shura members themselves do not show any respect for their own
>decision. How can they expect anyone else to do so?
I ask the readers to do their own investigation and find out the facts
for themselves
Cynthia R. Sulaiman
Munirah Alatas
Cynthia R. Sulaiman <csul...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>WHY DON'T YOU CHECK WITH ME?? You have not, in fact the only one who
>has is Greg Woods,,,and I explained the problem to him.
>
>NOT ONE OF YOU THAT HAS A PROBLEM HAS DIRECTED ANYTHING TO ME...BUT
>You Mr. Raja, are disparaging me and my name and my honor. You have
>not contacted me nor allowed me due process. You have fought your
>"battle" behind my back. Under Islamic law you do NOT have the right to
>do that.
>First off there are several machines that operate at GNU. If the reader
>doesn't believe me try : telnet gnu.ai.mit.edu
>you will see several gates listed.... one of those gates is Spiff, the only
>machine that has access to usenet.
>
>You can get onto GNU using any of the gates..but you can't use usenet.
>Mr. B. A. Raja has super user priviledges at GNU and can by pass ANY
>problem that arises at GNU and any of it's machines.
>
>I have no such priviledges....if I cannot telnet into spiff from my
>home account then I cannot post articles. my telnets to this machine
>timed out.
>
>Why don't I ask Mr. B. A. Raja for help (after all as he said he is
>on GNU and he was a moderator, and he did use the system)? Because
>he demanded that I have no contact with him...which until the last
>few hours of today I have been honoring.
>Cynthia R. Sulaiman
<garbage deleted>
**** Why don't you people leave Ms. Sulaiman to do her job?
Why is it that everyone is always so eager to harrass and
make life difficult for someone who's just trying to do
what he/she volunteered to do? Give her a break. There has
been so much fighting and embarrassing hurt left, right and
center. Let it go? Hmmm?
sma
Savithri
I have a suggestion for all you SRI fans.
Why don't you all make it an UNMODERATED group. That way
no one can accuse each other of slimy behaviour and start
discussing (and yes arguing too) about Islam. Moderating
groups like this is ridiculous. WHat are you guys afraid of?
SOme oppositions or questions from FAKIRS? or difference of
opinion from the various Islamic sects themselves. If you
can't take different views into an argument, then those
are pretty questionable set of beliefs.
I just wanted to add a personal experience on that group.
A month or so ago, there was a reader who wanted to hear
of others experience etc. of hindu/muslim marriages. I posted a
reply giving all the relevant details of my sis and her hubby's
case. I was extremely disappointed to see that it was NEVER
posted on the group. I did not have the time then to
pursue the issue (and the will either). I think it is ridiculous
to selectively NOT post some peoples ideas, views, experiences,whatever
in a such groups. Are you people so INSECURE that you can't bear to listen
to folks who might present a different point of view?
Savithri
Nafees Akhtar
>A month or so ago, there was a reader who wanted to hear
>of others experience etc. of hindu/muslim marriages. I posted a
>reply giving all the relevant details of my sis and her hubby's
>case. I was extremely disappointed to see that it was NEVER
>posted on the group.
>Savithri
May be, you should go ahead and post it on the other relevant
soc.* newsgroups and it would have reached most of the sri
audience any way.
Why do we need a moderated sri any way?
NA
Basalat Ali Raja
Savithri <st...@shiva.mc.ti.com> wrote:
>I have a suggestion for all you SRI fans.
>Why don't you all make it an UNMODERATED group.
>[...some quite reasonable comments deleted...]
>Are you people so INSECURE that you can't bear to listen
>to folks who might present a different point of view?
No, we are not. At least, some of us are not. I have always felt
that it would be a good idea to have an unmoderated Islamic newsgroup.
That is why we are proposing soc.religion.muslim and
talk.religion.islam as two unmoderated newsgroups - one for discussing
the culture and the other for discusing the theology.
I should point out that, in all honesty, people who disagree with me
on this subject do not necessarily do it out of fear or insecurity.
They do have a valid point in that some people feel very strongly
about various issues related to Islam and this could quite possibly
lead to flame wars.
However, on the other hand, moderation has not been really successful
at preventing things like the perpetual Shia/Sunni debate, which has
on occassion trashed the newsgroup quite efficiently.
Volker Wiewer
> Humpty-dumpty: I am not interested in further public mudslinging
> pertaining to this matter.
> Hoity-toity: Yes... let's get back to the private mudslinging.
I'm just curious... how is the private mudslinging going?