[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
-
From: gopal@ecf.toronto.edu (GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana)
-
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 1996 19:36:59 -0400
-
Fake-Sender: news@ecf.toronto.edu (News Administrator)
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: Academic disscussions only incorporated
-
References: <4skjv0$abb@babbage.ece.uc.edu> <31EFD10C.1B5C@ecn.purdue.edu> <31f604a2.48125902@library.airnews.net> <31F14998.7F30@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Sender: News Administrator <news@ecf.toronto.edu>
[will be posted to srh separately in addition to sci and news.groups]
In article <31F14998.7F30@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Ken Stuart wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Then howcome you support *unmoderated* talk ng? As I remarked it will be
>> >a happy hunting ground for net-spammers. Eg, I can think of cross posts
>> >between sci.med.nutrition and the talk group with some inane posts on
>> >vegetarianism, attacks on various net personalities, the kashmir issue
>> >(sometime back in humanities.languages.sanskrit of all ngs!), so on and so
>> >forth.
>>
>> As I see it, the unmoderated talk ng allows for an outlet for all the
>> borderline messages that are currently allowed into soc.culture.hindu, oh
>> sorry, I mean soc.religion.hindu .
>>
>>Thus the moderator(s) can feel guiltfree aboutsaying no, because the message
>> can then be posted in the talk ng, and freedom of speech is preserved.
>
>First, what is border-line for you may be of serious interest to another.
>
>As I see it, the proponents consider the so called "border line" topics of no
>interest and are pushing these to the talk group. My bet is that it will be
>full of spams in 1 week and any serious reader of the current srh will give it
>up.
and the right way to go about is to decide what the majority of the
readers decide through a usenet vote. and blocking such a vote
clearly shows where the confidence of the moderator lies.
Follow-Ups:
