[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <ghenDuGMCM.B8t@netcom.com>,
Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu> wrote:
>> Now, however, we see that you've been allowing posts which encourage
> ^^^^^
>> the use of illegal drugs. So why is it that posts which contain
>
>Vivek ji, can you point to postS (as opposed to post) ?
I specifically asked why that post was allowed, and you stated that it
was allowed because it contained other information along with the
promotion of drugs.
If your policy on sexual material was that any article which contained
any sexual material should be banned, then it makes sense that if you
have a similar policy for drug-pushing, then you should've stated that
the article slipped through.
You didn't.
So, it's reasonable to conclude, especially from your first
explanation, that articles promoting drug use won't be banned as long
as they contain other information.
If that isn't the case, then please state what your policy is
regarding articles promoting drug use, rather than leaving us to guess
at it from your vague statements.
>As all *reasonable and rational* minded people who *really* read this
>newsgroup for *constructive* purposes would agree, that SRH does not
>encourage or promote drugs, or sexually explicit material. That does nto
>mean that every line is caught everytime...
In your earlier message, you said that the article was _allowed_
because it mentioned some baba. Is that still your position, or do you
wish to now state that the article, in sum, should have been rejected
because it promoted drug use?
>But repeated questioning of the policy related to Drug ads and SRH it self
>shows nothing more than a personal vendetta.
No, I'm trying to clarify the policy, and your vague statements are
making it hard to do so.
-Vivek
