[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Religious unity
In article <4d4hum$6op@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ajay Shah <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
[...]
>I have challanged the proponents of re-org to produce a single article
>that has been unfairly rejected from posting on *SRH*. As we have all seen
>volumes and volumes of messages flowing from the proponents, this single,
>simple request has gone un-answered.
Actually, it has been answered. Here's what I said about it the last
time:
"Nice try, but the statement is sneaky - the Shiva Purana post was
rejected, of course, from alt.hindu while you were still the
moderator, and while it had guidelines identical to SRH."
Later, when you responded to that article, you clipped my response
entirely. You stated:
"Once again, challange remains. Provide a single unfairly rejected posting
from soc.religion.hindu. After all, we are debating SRH re-org aren't we?"
So I dropped out of the discussion with:
"Snipped my response entirely on that one, eh? Whatever you wish - I
don't see a need to keep putting in that response to have you snip it
repeatedly."
So, if you want to assert that your "simple request has gone
un-answered", I would say that you are wrong.
Is it you contention that the article in question would have been
allowed on soc.religion.hindu, even though you rejected it from
alt.hindu? If so, why the change, and what was the difference in the
charter and moderation policies of the two groups which would have
caused the change? You were the moderator who rejected it initially
from alt.hindu, and given that you are the current moderator of SRH,
it seems that something else must have changed in order for you to
suggest that the article would not have been unfairly rejected, as it
was on alt.hindu.
So, what is it?
-Vivek
Sat Jan 13 14:12:26 CST 1996
References:
