[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: rules regarding administrative changes
In article <4kh0s7$e9r@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
|> kstuart@telis.org (Ken Stuart) wrote:
|>
|> >What is the definition of "a reasonable no. of people" and how is it
|> >determined that "a reasonable no. of people" find it agreeable ?
|> >
|> >PS A reasonable no. of people find it agreeable that I will be
|> >President of the United States, so the election on November 5th has
|> >been called off.
|>
|> A reasonable number would be more people agreeing than dis-agreeing. The actual
|> point has been totally lost in the various replies to the post of Ajay Shah.
I believe that you have gotten some of the posts confused. I was the
one who proposed that some set of rules be codified regarding
administrative changes, and this was in response to the two queries
which are still unresolved, to my knowledge:
- English only on SRH
- banning certain words
I don't see how your definition of "reasonable" is the operative one
given that
a) you aren't the one making the decision - the moderator is
b) if that's the case, then Ken and I agree on this point, and
only one person has disagreed, so the changes are in place
I don't know if you meant to propose what you felt was a working
definition of "reasonable", but in any case, that query has gone
unanswered, and I find it odd that these simple questions don't
receive concrete answers in a newsgroup touted repeatedly as being
"democratic".
Now, back to your post, in which you address a total side issue:
|> IMO, the first post by Vivek (I think) alleging that Dr Maharaj is someone
|> called Jay Stevens should not have been allowed.
The source of my posts, interestingly enough, was a post of yours
to which Jai replied to a quote taken out of context. You were
referring to Sanskrit scholars in the US, and he clipped the context
and followed up with some drivel. He then did the same for some other
posts, mainly arguments from alt.support.ex-cult.
So, if we're going to start finding the "demon seed", you need to
look back a little further and ask why these sorts of cut-and-paste
jobs were allowed in the first place, especially when the whole point
was just to have "Dr J" air his vendetta.
|> I have seen this piece of info
|> floating around in many ng's like sci.med.nutrition. However, why bring this up
|> in srh even assuming that Jai Maharaj is actually Stevens? It would have made
|> more sense to attack his arguments (atleast in this ng).
Actually, the arguments were attacked in the newsgroup in which they
were first raised, alt.support.ex-cult, and I pointed interested
parties to the archives of that group. A few other people also raised
the same points here on SRH, but I didn't see the need to rehash the
original author's misunderstanding of what he read.
I hope this clarifies matters.
-Vivek
Follow-Ups:
