[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Tale and the SRH-reorg (Was: Re: Charter changes?)
-
From: rajwi@bu.edu (Rajwinder Singh)
-
Date: 12 Jul 1996 19:05:46 GMT
-
Followup-To: news.groups,soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: news.groups, soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Ek simro naanakaa jal thal riha samaae'||
-
References: <4nd8fs$h2b@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <qum20iysz27.thoron@cyclone.Stanford.EDU> <4r8s22$16rt@bcx01.boco.co.gov> <4r92vf$m37@larry.rice.edu> <ghenDu9s2C.151@netcom.com> <ghenDuBB7z.1GE@netcom.com>
Ken Stuart (kstuart@mail.telis.org) wrote in article <ghenDuBB7z.1GE@netcom.com> on Wed, 10 Jul 1996 05:28:47 GMT :
>The major problem with this proposal is that SRH suffers from *too many* posts
>being approved, not too many posts being rejected. If one Hindu ever thought
>about the subject proposed, then that is enough for the post to be accepted.
>:-) Furthermore, posts consisting of personal attacks on Hindu leaders have
>been accepted, as well as, amazingly enough, requests for negative and
>scandalous information about Hindu leaders.
>A major aspect of the reorg proposal is to make the newsgroup
>soc.religion.hindu, *not* soc.culture.hindu .
Despite this excessive number of posts approved to SRH, the traffic is way
below the accepted level which would warrant a reorganization: 200 or more
posts per day. Even if it was 100 posts per day, *perhaps* the reorg
proposal would make sense. In the current state of affairs, when the
traffic is far, far below those numbers, it is _absurd_ to even
talk about reorganization.
rajwinder singh
rajwi@acs.bu.edu
