[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: The Physical Immortality Project
Namaskar,
Kenji's following post requires an explanation. Here it is.
It is my policy that maximum amount of leverage be given to the poster,
and not be unfair in rejecting any article. Yes, that even includes
articles that are believed to contain fringe phiolosphies (in the eyes of
some readers).
Kenji's assertion, that only articles related to RFD are beig read etc.
is without basis, and all the readers have my assurance on it.
On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Ken Stuart wrote:
> On 17 Jan 1996 07:23:38 GMT, wheez@ibike.com (wheez @ Sedona5) wrote
> in soc.religion.hindu:
>
> >ANNOUNCEMENT: The Physical Immortality Project
>
> Is it my imagination, or does this have nothing whatsoever to do with
> soc.religion.hindu ?
>
> ( Sure, you can find a little reference to Physical Immortality in
> Hinduism with regards to "deathless yogis" and their techniques, but
> that is NOT what this post is about. There is no reference to the
> Hindu religion anywhere in this post, even indirectly).
>
In my personal opinion, you have already answered the question yourself.
It is precisely on the above grounds, that the article was accepted.
Unlike bot moderated newsgroups, we do not look for keyword "Hindu"
before accepting the artticle.
> It looks to me like, especially since the RFD, the moderator
is not
> reading any of the posts (except the RFD ones for his own personal
> information), but just passes them on to the newsgroup.
>
No, this is not true.
> Clearly this is because there are more posts than he can deal with,
> being only one person. Yes, this is because of the RFD discussion,
> but can anyone say that there won't be another equally involving and
> controversial topic soon ?
>
This is based on incorrect assumption.
> The following have been posted recently:
>
> - Messages totally irrelevant to SRH
> - Personal Attacks
> - Requests for information that can be used in attacks against
> prominent hindu religious leaders
Please note that:
1. The relevency of the post to SRH is a subjective decision. and as I
mentioned before, I make that decision based on the greatest amount of
leverage given to the poster.
2. Personal attacks, IMHO would be of the form, "You are xxxx" (xxx =
stupid or some such thing).
I have not approved any such posting. Please note that the poster is
assumed to be a mature reader, who will respect his/her fellow
poster/debator on SRH. Once again, the idea is to give maximum benifit
of the doubt, and not impede the ongoing discussion/debate. I can only
hope, and request that all sides will respect each other. And only, in
the very worst case, I as a moderator will take an extreme and sad step
of rejecting someone's posting.
3. We do not have a provision in SRH charter to reject postings that
criticize prominent Hindu leaders/saints (or even politicians!)
>
> None of the above were rejected by the moderator.
>
More times than one, I have seen helplessly and in dispair, criticism of
many Saints and Gods that I revere on this forum (and others). The
choices I have are always very clear, reject such a post or accept it.
Rejecting the posting would mean censorship, or imposing my opinion on the
newsgroup. Whereas, accepting the posting would give everyone a chance
to respond the postings and expose flaws in it. After years of experience,
I for one have come to the conslusion that most readers will give the
negative posting the weight it deserves, and nothing more! And
those who post negative posts are judged accordingly.
And yet, in the true spirit of democracy, if the readers of this forum
believe that postings putting our saints in bad light should not be
accepted, we can (collectively) think about it. At least, my first
thought is towards accepting such posts, because there will always be
a fine line demarkating genuine criticism and malice, and the decision
hardly ever be non-controvertial, no matter who makes it
> The moderator repeatedly asks for instances of posts that have been
> rejected, but I think that is because no posts are being rejected for
> any reason, so really the situation is the same as if there is no
> moderator.
>
Posts that violate the charter are regularly rejected. Commercial
announcements, spams, personal attacks (direct), and anonymous posts
saying "(Some) Hindu God is (some explicitive), are regularly rejected.
>
> Namaskar,
>
> Ken
> kstuart@snowcrest.net
>
> The message for 1996:
> "Be filled with enthusiasm and sing God's glory!"
>
Moderating the newsgroup will certainly take cooperation of mature
netters, who are quite learned in various philosophical topics. I urge
them all to follow the basic net.ethics.
I also urge Ken-ji to allow people some freedom, to post
their (rather) off beat opinions, and not use the freedom granted on this
forum to further the re-org debate.
regards,
Ajay Shah
References:
