[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH Reorg FAQ
In article <4svffh$p18@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>We are again back to the "proper newsgroups" mantra. You make it sound as if
>there is a regular tirade on the sri lankan problem in srh. The fact is that
>there was _one_ post. in the past 8-9 months of my reading srh. This is going
The fact is that the moderator has decided that posts about human
rights abuses are on-topic for soc.religion.hindu. I hope we are in
agreement over that. However, let's consider the following:
a) I asked if posts about human rights violations _by_ Hindus were on-topic.
I received no reply.
b) I pointed out that this newsgroup considers Buddhists Hindus, and
therefore, the entire Sri Lanka conflict is Hindu on Hindu. Once
again, I got no reply.
c) I pointed out that the article "All Indians are Hindoos" makes the
claim that, well, all Indians are Hindoos, so as a result, _any_ post
about human rights violations in India would be on topic according
to point (a). Once again, I received no reply.
So, once again, I ask - what posts _are_ allowed under this human
rights clause? More specifically, what posts are not allowed? Would
you really like to see all of Kulbir Singh's posts on SRH, since he
could use the justification that this newsgroup's policies consider
Sikhs to be Hindus and as a result, and post about human rights
violations against Sikhs are on-topic here?
>I'll post once more on my suggestions for a compromise sometime soon and
>hopefully that's it.
I look forward to it - seriously.
-Vivek
