[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4secff$cnn@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ajay Shah <ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Namaskar,
>
>On 12 Jul 1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai 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) ?
> ^
Why, do you want many of them?
What Vivek asked does not imply that there were many such posts; it's
proper English to use the plural as he did, in spite of there having
been only one instance.
>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...
Does that mean you're now saying that accepting that posting was a
mistake? It looked as if so far you were justifying it, and that did
raise serious questions about policy inconsistency.
>But repeated questioning of the policy related to Drug ads and SRH it self
>shows nothing more than a personal vendetta.
Of course not; bringing out the same line about "personal vendetta"
all the time without giving concrete answers shows nothing more
than...
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>regards,
>
>ajay shah
>ajay@mercury.aichem.arizona.edu
