[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Stats for SRH Postings in 1996
Ken Stuart wrote:
> In an eloquent manner, Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com>
> elucidated:
>
> >On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Can you please post some statistics after Dec 1995 to lay this argument to
> >> rest one way or the other? If the entire file is too large, can you just post
> >> the number of posts versus delay for, say Jan and Feb 1996? Thanks.
[snip]
> >Explanation: This means that in January, I cleared postings 22 times,
> >once a set of postings is cleared it means that except for the postings
> >that require further explanation from the poster, I have no postings in
> >the queue
> 1996 is IRRELEVANT.
Why is 1996 irrelevant? It wasn't denied that there were posting delays
before. Since there is not much delay now, I fail to see the relevance of the
1995 statistics. Since the RFD plans to replace the _current_ srh, only the
current (1996) stats are relevant. 1995 stats are irrelevant.
While there may be a causal connection between the RFD and the current posting
frequency, that's of no relevance. Unless, ofcourse, the proponents and you
are going to claim that the moderator will relapse to the previous (1995)
frequency of posting. Then we enter the realm of pure speculation.
> When I originally read the SRH reorg proposal, I was already dismayed about
> the infrequency of posting sets and about the irrelevant and negative posts
> that were being allowed on SRH.
Are you satisfied about the frequency now? Finally, I don't see the point in
banning negative posts. It would be sweeping the dirt under the carpet, so to
speak. In any case these would be posted in the talk group.
> Therefore, the SRH reorg proposal looked to me (and still does) as a
> beneficial change to SRH.
No it doesn't. Especially the talk group. I hope you are acquainted with ngs
like sct (soc.culture.tamil). It would be virtually impossible to conduct a
sane dialog. I am totally against any RFD which contains an unmoderated hindu
discussion forum. Before you realize it, it'll become a spam ng for some of
our net spammers.
> Since I had no knowledge of anything that might have to do with "personal
> vendettas", I SIMPLY EVALUATED THE REORG ON ITS OWN MERITS.
May be it's time to reconsider, with the _current_ srh in mind.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said, "The flag is moving." The other
said, "The wind is moving." The sixth patriarch happened to be passing by. He
told them, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving." - The Gateless Gate
