[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Administrivia : Articles Containing Sexual Contents
[ intended for posting ]
In article <4j2tnb$6hv@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (srh) writes:
[...]
|> I have checked with the moderators of all other newsgroups, and I have
|> been advised by most of the people who responded that, it is well
|> within my duty as a moderator to evolve rules such as these.
Does this mean you are now imposing things unilaterally without
asking for input from the readers of this group? Does this have
anything to do with more vocal readers actually asking questions
(which never received answers) to the last two "administrativia
requests"?
I find this very puzzling, since in defense of your decision
to post that "ISKCON in turmoil" thread, you stated:
It is for this reason, that I accept articles pertaining to Hindu
organizations and religious teachers/saints and let the readers choose
which ones to ignore.
So, why the sudden change of heart, since less than a week ago,
you were of the opinion that those articles should be posted?
I'm curious now - who was the saint mentioned this time?
Also, I still have not received a reply about how "consensus" is
determined for administative change requests. Is one forthcoming?
-Vivek
