[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4skjt1$aam@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>You people are so convinced
>that posts which have politics+religion should not be posted and wish to
>shove that opinion down everyone's throats.
No, actually, I'd like people to be able to vote on it.
Does that sound unreasonable?
Does that sound like trying to force it on people?
I'd like to see a _vote_, so that people can decide how they want
things run.
As it currently stands, the vote is being blocked. Who do you think is
really forcing things on people - the proponents, or those who are
trying to block their proposal?
>which is direct, either material or spiritual, with Hinduism. If you guys are
>extremely spiritual, neglect the other posts. Why are you stopping the rest of
>us from discussing the other valid stuff on a moderated srh?
Nobody is trying to stop anything, but instead, merely put things in
their proper newsgroups. If you want to have
soc.religion.hindu.sri-lankans-killing-each-other, fine, but please
allow the readers of soc.religion.hindu the option of not having it in
a religion newsgroup.
>I remember that the "threat letter" to Ajay Shah was reposted in the previous
>discussions on the RFD and must be in the archives.
Along with the explanations of why that "threat letter" wasn't a
threat, and along with proof that the people claiming it is such are
intentionally ignoring the parts which would invalidate their claims.
-Vivek
