[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: vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik)
-
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:26:39 GMT
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups
-
Organization: Ad Astra
-
References: <4di85q$fo6@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4dks3g$kh1@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4e8vkg$oi5@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4ekluh$90t@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <4frkkm$bul@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
kstuart@snowcrest.net (Ken Stuart) wrote:
>On 30 Jan 1996 08:47:13 GMT, vri@tiac.net (Arun Malik) wrote in
>soc.religion.hindu:
>> But to refuse to post it would be censorship based on content
>That is exactly what a moderator is supposed to do.
>If you want total lack of censorship, then read unmoderated groups.
I always find it interesting when people quote phrases out of context.
Why do this?
All I have to do is repost the entire sentence to show how your criticism is
based on a deliberately butchered sentence.
"But to refuse to post it would
be censorship based on content - there were no profanities, it was
properly formatted, AND it was asking about a Hindu religous leader
and is therefore on topic for this newsgroup."
Now, where in that sentence did I argue for "total lack of censorship"?
And please note, the second half of the sentence qualifies and limits the
assertion in the first half. After all, I do emphasize that the post was on
topic for the newsgroup.
Arun Malik
