[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Towards a peaceful compromise (why a better charter is needed?)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Towards a peaceful compromise (why a better charter is needed?)
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:13:32 -0500
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
-
References: <4bdstk$j39@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4df2p5$68r@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4di8m0$fq3@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dks0h$kfp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
In article <4dks0h$kfp@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>Ken Stuart (kstuart@snowcrest.net) wrote:
[...]
>: (The post didn't ask what people's opinions are - it started out with
>: the assumption that he is a fraud.)
>
>: Note that I am NOT a follower of Sai Baba, just someone who respects
>: his work, such as building schools and hospitals in India that are
>: available free of charge, etc.
>
>In a sense, I agree with Ken here.
>But then, it is also a responsibility of
>our readers (of s.r.h) that we know what we are writing. The moderators
>can only exert there influence up to a limit. Beyond that limit, it
>is all up to us.
[...]
>: Well, I think that the immediate response to my version of moderation
>: will be something about freedom of speech, etc. If there is an
>: unmoderated talk.religion.hindu, then all the dissidents and
>: hate-mongers will have a forum [ not that they don't already use
>: soc.culture.indian :-) ], so they won't have any reason to complain
>: when their posts are rejected by the moderator of SRH.
>
>I am not averse to the proposed talk group. However, the reason
>that such a group will exist, DOES NOT imply that any articles
>rejected on the aforementioned ground, will not generate criticism.
criticism will always be there; even the poster who posted the anti-
saibaba article *against* which you expressed your views, would have been
unhappy and criticised the moderator if the post was *rejected*. The
point Ken S points out is that he will not have a *reason* to
criticise. and moderator will have to have the authority of the charter
*even* to, -- what you described as --, "exert influence". in the
absence of such provisions in a charter, a moderator can *not* exert
such influence without facing the accusation of 'ultra vires' actions.
And that is why a charter is needed in the first place for any moderated
group.
