[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: new site needs your point of view
In article <4icj2a$s16@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>Hindu dharma. I'm glad that only articles relevant to Hindu dharma are
>>posted here. I won't ever doubt his moderating abilities again.
>
>Why not? I was criticizing some theories propounded by some virtuous souls
>in a sarcastic manner. It is certainly a discussion about Hinduism.
Actually, it isn't. It's a discussion about discussions about Hinduism.
>And, I didn't see you dash off a mail as soon as you saw Vivek's post.
Are you spying on Krishna again. Naughty boy!
>Ofcourse, since he agrees with you on philosophical issues, any post of
>his is OK. Note that Vivek was also making fun of certain posts which have
>appeared in srh.
I didn't expect my original post to be approved to SRH, specifically
because it had absolutely nothing to do with Hinduism.
As many people suggested (in posts on SRH), I contacted the moderator
directly to ask him questions. However, out of about the 10 or so
questions I had, most received a cursory answer, and many received no
answer at all.
Finally, he told me that I should not ask any more questions, but
instead, I should post on SRH, so I did. I also pointed out that I
first posted my questions on SRH, and only after they were ignored
did I ask directly.
Interestingly, one of the questions I had (which I was instructed to
post on SRH) was: which specific phrases did you find you so sexually
explicit that you couldn't post them to SRH?
Does anyone see the irony in asking me to post that question to SRH
and expecting an answer to be posted to SRH? I do.
-Vivek
P.S. Before it comes up, I have no problem with having that entire
exchange of letters posted. I don't expect it to be posted, but I just
wanted to pre-empt the question of "do you have anything to hide?".
Follow-Ups:
