[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
Namaskar,
On Fri, 12 Jan 1996, Mani Varadarajan wrote:
> In article <4d4hu3$6ok@babbage.ece.uc.edu> Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> writes:
> >
> > This assumes that SRH is politicized. A blatantly false assumption.
>
> When we mean ``de-politicize'', we mean that political articles
> completely unrelated to Hindu religion are currently allowed.
> Are you saying that SRH does not allow political articles,
> as it stands now?!
>
SRH allows articles from *everyone* that are related to Hindu dharma.
If the articles have something to do with Hindus then they are allowed,
whether they are political or not, and articles from all sides of
political spectrum are allowed.
In the first two months of SRH, we took the authors' word, and in their
opinion if the articles were of peripheral interest to Hindus we allowed them.
Post "Dignity" posting, I asked the opinion of the readers and based on the
response, it was decided that *only* the articles *directly *related to
Hindus and Hindu dharma (whether political or not) will be accepted.
I am howevre, glad that you have backtracked from your earlier statement
that "not enough progressives are posting on SRH". Progressives and
regressives, pro-something and anti-something everyone is welcome on
SRH. Unlike the proposed RFD, the present SRH does not shut-out
*anyone*. After all, no unfairly rejected SRH article has yet been
presented!
> Ajay, I ask you point blank: how are the statistics skewed? Please
> give me a direct answer.
Posted the point by point response to this yesterday (article may still be
available on your newsserver), perhaps Vivekji will save my articles and make
them available to the other proponents of re-org RFD like you from his web
site, so I do not get the same question from a different proponent each day?
> Mani
regards,
ajay shah
References:
