[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
In article <4d4hru$6ma@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ken Stuart <kstuart@snowcrest.net> wrote:
>On 11 Jan 1996 06:18:05 GMT, Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu>
>wrote in soc.religion.hindu:
>
>>I am surprised that the proponents have shown no aptitude to such broad
>>minded expansion of Hindu dharma on the net.
>
>I don't know about the proponents, but I find nothing wrong with your
>proposal above.
>
>Since this is what you want, it very strongly implies:
>
>1) You don't object to adding soc.relgion.hindu.info and
>talk.religion.hindu on grounds of not enough traffic, since you
>yourself have just proposed 5 new hindu newsgroups.
Well, some of us have other objections. First of all an unmoderated talk group
is something I am strongly opposed to. Second an info newsgroup is absolutely
unnecessary. How many info posts do we get now? Practically none. This
certainly is not due to the "delays" in srh. How about a talk kind of group on
the model of srv? This will definitely reduce spam posts. Just the hint of
moderation (auto or otherwise) will keep spam posts out. Also delays will be
reduced.
There may be a billion Hindus in the world, but most of them are not
going to be on the internet for a long, long time to come. So an info newsgroup
is probably a good idea 50 years from now.
I really wouldn't want to see the talk group degenerating like many other
Indian newsgroups.
>I'm glad that we've finally settled this whole situation, and look
>forward to implementation of the compromise.
No, we ain't :-).
Ramakrishnan.
References:
