[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: SRH ARTICLE : Proper venue for RFD discussions
In article <ghenDv34HB.H97@netcom.com>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>> The standard procedure is to conduct RFD discussions on news.groups.
>
>Yes, but the moderator allowed discussion on it on srh so that the
>readers would get an idea about the RFD.
Unforunately, what we saw instead were repeated accusations about
skewed statistics, name-calling against the proponents, and no attempt
to even consider any of the compromise solutions proposed either by
the proponents or by third parties.
>It is however extremely hilarious that some of the proponents of the RFD
>who are out to reform srh have not managed to conduct even their pet ng
>srv in a proper manner.
I have some questions for you, RB, if you wish to bring in SRV into this:
a) when the SRH moderator unilaterally declared policies banning
certain avenues of discussion, without even allowing for reader
input prior to making that decision, you did not speak up. Why is
that? The SRH charter doesn't allow topics to be arbitrarily
banned, does it?
b) when I pointed out that a certain poster was effectively being
blackballed right here on SRH, you once again said nothing. In
fact, I've stated several times that his posts which question the
HSC and VHP have not been posted on SRH, nor has he received any
rejection notices. Recall that the HSC claims to sponsor this
newsgroup, and the VHP claims to sponsor the HSC. Do you find
anything strange about this situation?
c) point (a) was brough up months ago, and point (b) was raised weeks
ago, but you haven't commented on either, as far as I've seen. Now,
you've commented on the situation on SRV, but, as far as I've seen,
a reasonable case can be made that the situation on SRH is quite a
bit more serious. So why haven't you commented on the situation in
SRH?
>This kind of situation is not very uncommon as you might know. As is
>usual, people who fault others for trivial points and try to impose
>their ideas of morality on others, hardly ever follow their set of rules
>themselves.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
-Vivek
