People who are interested in reading more about Sri Lanka especially in terms of the whole Diaspora issue should have a look at this blog site, http://sahasamvada-forum.blogspot.com/

Whatever the case, like I mentioned earlier, supporting a “range of views and voices” is the last thing that Groundviews does.

What do you like to read?

How about not a duplicate site, but more of a simple site, like, e.g., “GroundviewsWatch,” where you could provide textual commentary on what you feel are Groundviews’s omissions/what have you?

No one is perfect, but we give this forum everything (what little) we have.

And I recognize that. Leaving a couple of comments aside, if SL threads continue in this vein, I’ll have to retract my previous statement.

That would’ve been my last word in this thread, to let V.V. move on with the business of her follow-up post… but it seems almost criminal to let the following be the final word in a relatively nuanced thread:

It’s not surprising that quite a few Srilankan Tamils are going gaa gaa over Groundviews seeing as it has absolutely zero criticism of the LTTE or Tamil nationalism, but oodles of it for the Government and Sinhalese nationalism.

And now an obvious rationale for AVIAF’s reluctance to provide identifying information becomes abundantly clear.

Lankapura, first of all, nobody is going “gaa gaa.” There are criticisms throughout this thread and elsewhere. Secondly, you’ve obviously missed the point of Sanjana’s comment (#34)– after linking to a few critical analyses of Tamil nationalism published on Groundviews, he goes on to explain why the site focuses on the government– it is clear to anyone who can read between the lines that it is a denunciation of LTTE tactics, and the use of those very same tactics by the government (hello, paramilitary proxies). But of course, you aren’t reading what is being said. You haven’t bothered to step out of your box to think why Tamils who write under their own names scrutinize every word they put out there, and why so many express their positions under pseudonyms. Instead, you’re ascribing political positions to the commenters solely on the basis of your assumptions about their identities. So Tamil = Tiger or Tiger supporter.

Ironically, the LTTE’s political leadership and its most ardent supporters prescribe exactly the same view.

Funny that.

Citizen journalism? Please. It’s run by a member of the Centre For Policy Alternatives; supporting a “range of views and voices” is the last thing it does. If Groundviews is representative of ordinary Sri Lankan citizens they would have already voted in an uber-liberal-colombo-elite government, granted Tamil Eelam on a platter and be toasting the LTTE by drinking arrack and dancing to loud baila music.

I’m not a particular authority and am happy to hear from those with different opinions. Nor do I mean to suggest that Groundviews is above criticism: like any editorial product, of course it has its flaws. But my aims include giving them what credit I think they’re due–and steering criticisms towards things that are actually actionable, like K’s suggestion of an acknowledgment of awareness of limitations. My preference is for the pragmatic rather than the abstract, and that’s the first good suggestion I’ve seen. I find her idea actually very interesting and wonder how specifically it might be implemented. Where on the site would it go? What language might it use?

AVIAF, I wasn’t trying to attack you by asking about your identity… I merely wished to point out that anonymity doesn’t necessarily protect you from people ascribing guesses to you. It’s more of that damned if you do, damned if you don’t business. Ah, Sri Lanka… Anyway, orneriness might be your style, but it’s not mine, so thank-you-come-again… seriously.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t…And I especially didn’t want to malign my friend, who was the original writer of that post. She’s an amazing person, and one of the few people who (IMHO) has said anything sane on the subject in that forum.

Huh. That’s how I feel about my imperfect but well-intentioned attempts to post about Sri Lanka– (very) damned if I do, (a little less) damned if I don’t. :\

Why is one lengthy comment (that tries to think through the issues at hand) seen to bury discussion, while 100 silly comments are not?

But why isn’t that sort of thoughtful mega-comment more appropriate as a post? Why is that such a terrible idea? I think that if AVIAF started a blog, they’d immediately have an audience, just based on the feedback on this thread. It’s not a question of burying a discussion or a preference for death by a thousand comments, it’s the pursuit of manageable comment threads; it really is difficult to read super-long comments on tiny screens. It’s hard to refute or discuss specific points, when they are buried among two-dozen other contentions…unless you write a mega-comment of your own…and that just exacerbates the situation.

I didn’t come up with the rule, but I understand it and I try to follow it myself. I’m sorry that you find it arbitrary or stupid.

This is my basic problem with the way the forum is run.

No one is perfect, but we give this forum everything (what little) we have.

If something is important to me, and I’m trying to work through it, soundbites don’t suffice.

I agree, completely. But how does discouraging long comments automatically equal “only soundbites” are allowed? Where’s the middle path? All we ask for is comments of a reasonable length. Is that evil of us?

Didn’t mean for this entire post to come across as petty– if anything, it was venting some frustrations I have about South Asian blogging on Sri Lanka. (A lot of those unassigned frustrations actually apply to this blog too. Maybe even especially so.) I meant to link to the Sepia Mutiny thread right off the bat, but why I didn’t name them is, well, I actually thought that might come off the wrong way. (Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, but now that I look at it again, I am more inclined to see what you said.) And I especially didn’t want to malign my friend, who was the original writer of that post. She’s an amazing person, and one of the few people who (IMHO) has said anything sane on the subject in that forum. You are right insofar as my snark about comment length was directed towards SM Intern’s response to AVIAF. I understand the point in not posting a lengthy comment if the writer wants it to be read– just as this post isn’t likely to find too many readers. But the idea that a comment that tries to respond to another comment should follow some unspecified rule of length, to me, is ridiculous– and I don’t buy the rationale behind it. Why is one lengthy comment (that tries to think through the issues at hand) seen to bury discussion, while 100 silly comments are not? This is my basic problem with the way the forum is run. If something is important to me, and I’m trying to work through it, soundbites don’t suffice. Sorry if that rubs the wrong way.

There you have it. I’ve said my piece, as I wanted it said, and it works for me.