[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH: Umpteen complaints about existing moderation policy
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: SRH: Umpteen complaints about existing moderation policy
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 11:09:35 -0500
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
-
References: <4di85q$fo6@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dks3g$kh1@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e8vkg$oi5@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4ebl92$sl9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
In article <4ebl92$sl9@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
N. Tiwari <ntiwari@rs3.esm.vt.edu> wrote:
>GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana (gopal@ecf.toronto.edu) wrote:
[....]
>5. Articles like Ultras' etc. IMO are mere lapses. However, if
> we want, we can beat moderator to death for such a lapse.
[...]
>Nachiketa Tiwari
i did *not* criticise the moderator in any of my posts. the most
near i came was when i said he should shed his inhibithions and
spell out his views, and i was promptly chided by some one.
i wrote the post only to show that we need to have clearly stated
moderation *policy/charter*, as the title in caps shows. even in
sai-baba thread also i said the same thing: that the problem is with
charter, and that i do not blame the moderator for it. (besides, i
also stated that i do not object to the articles highly critical
of sai-baba or any other god, provided it is based on some reasoning.
if you remember, i said, even articles that criticise Rama for vaali-
killing, Krishna for showing anger against bhisma, etc are all ok,
provided there is some discussion, rather that mere accusations).
may be i was wrong in posting this post, not so much for the contents
but the likely interpretations in the present RFD debate. i got
many email that i should not have posted this.
