[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: (reg Talk group)
Message-ID>: <4dln78$3rm@solaris.cc.vt.edu>
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote>:
>: In article <4di8ko$fpv@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
>: N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>: >
>: >
>: >2. The articles, which are pure pol. propoganda, should not go
>: > anywhere. Not to info group, and neither to talk group. Reason:
>: > They have nothing to do with Hindu_dharma.
>: >
>: so, in your opinion, what kind of articles should go to
>: talk.religion.hindu?
>Since, talk.religion.hindu will be umoderated (if it is indeed formed)
>any damn article could go to it. Despite the fact that you and I
>may not agree with the relevance of that article to
>the Hinduism.
>Nachiketa Tiwari
This is what proponents were also saying, that the articles that
do not fit in s.r.h can find their place in talk.* group.
you were rather arguing that they should not go, as if RFD is faulty
on that count. [see 2 above]
anyway do you support the idea of creation of talk.religion.hindu group?
