[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
>Subject: Re: SRH: Is Improvement of Hindu Newsgroups the Goal?
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu,news.groups
>Date: 13 Jan 1996 01:58:48 GMT
>Organization: University of Cincinnati
>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.
[..]
> Unlike the proposed RFD, the present SRH does not shut-out
>*anyone*. After all, no unfairly rejected SRH article has yet been
>presented!
The essential difference is *not* interms of presence or absence of
political articles coming to srh, or whether or not to reject them.
since you have already stated you *have* rejected some posts.
RFD only attempts to state the policy rather an explicitly so that
moderators need not face repeated criticism of *unfair* rejections.
and the posters are also clear about what to post.
Is this not what the moderation policy statement is all about?
how many of us really want srh to be a battle ground for political
fights? is it too much to expect to get rid of political debates
from a "moderated" "religious" group?
hope we still remember Ken S question: what is *moderated* group for?
Well if you say "wording" is not clear, it is another matter. then
suggest some alternative. if you say 'pure political articles
completely unrelated to hindu dharma will be rejected' (as N Tiwari put
it) then you know *for* *sure* that entire "hindustan banega pakistan"
etc will come here, for almost everyting from punjab khalistani
movement to 1984 anti- sikh riots to every thing on earth can come here
since some connection to hindu-*dharma* can always be made for any
issue in south asia. i hardly need to include srh in my .newsrc file
it will become a mirror site for sci, like all sci.* groups have already
become.
even srs does not discuss khalistani issue even though it has direct
connection to sikhism.
that is why i consider articles that are primarily about religious
scriptures and aspects academic debates that are likely to be of
interest to "apolitical" audience a fair description. (i am not
quoting from RFD).
just one thing i repeat, if you permit: just watch srs and srv to
see how good it will be to throw out propaganda articles.
i myself consider the wording alright to begin with, but have no
objection to rewording.
References:
