[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: new site needs your point of view
In article <4il8aa$9li@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
editor <editor@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu> wrote:
>I find it some what ironic that on one hand Vivekji has been arguing against
>the inclusion of Quan Yin posts on the grounds that they are not relevent
>to Hindu dharma, and on the other hand he is arguing for the foul mouth
>garbage and discussion of sexual practices during Ramayana period (which is
>being passed as Kama Sutra discussion) on this newsgroup.
Actually, I thought it was pretty obvious that he was exposing the fact that
there is no uniform standard of accepting or rejecting posts on this
newsgroup. Although few people would want to see sexually explicit material on
this group, the charter does not forbid it per se. Using the argument that it
is not relevant to "Hindu dharma" is a dead end - no one has come up with a
definition of "Hindu dharma" that has been consistently used by the moderator.
What it means, therefore, is that one person has way too much power over
deciding what is and what is not relevant to Hinduism. I think it is fair that
this kind of decision at least be carried out by a group of people of diverse
interests, rather than just one person.
References:
