[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Artificial Justification for Info Group
kstuart@mail.telis.org (Ken Stuart) writes:
>Hello,
>It seems clear from this post and the ones entitled:
[snipped]
>and the ones that were approved by the moderator with the titles:
>INFO : Vajrasuchi upanishhad
This was my post.
>INFO : Bow to the Sun! (suuryaashhTaka)
>that the moderator does not understand the purpose of an "Info" newsgroup, or
>in this case an "INFO:" posting.
And I am glad that you informed the moderator and the group about
the definition of the INFO poster.
It is my turn to confess that I was ignorant of the above, just
like I was ignorant of the fact that Hanuman is NOT a hindu God. Godspeed,
I will call my family who don't have access to the group and inform of this
since they call themselves Hindus and worship Hanuman.
To point out this was not the moderator fault entirely, since
I titled my article as INFO : vajrasuchi upanishad and the word INFO was not
added on by the moderator. The moderator rejecting the article because
of the word and me reposting it would have consumed both of our time
un-neccessarily but seeing how Ken has pointed out this, we all should have
wasted 10 min or so, for the benefit of the group.
>The Vajrasuchi Upanishad study group wll be meeting every Saturday at 3 a.m.
>in Room 108 at Silly University. Everyone is welcome to join us. "
>Joe Blow's new translation of the Vajrasuchi Upanishad is now available from
>McWeirdo Press. "
Are words like Silly University, Joe Blow, McWeirdo really necessary ?
What can't you say Vedic University, Joe Smith/ John Doe etc.. ? Oh well..
>PS On July 1st, the moderator wrote:
>>Each post, if it is the "first" in the thread, contain labels such as :
>>INFO : Subject Title for posts seeking information
>which fits neither Internet conventions nor any of the subsequent INFO: posts!
Considering that the moderator wrote on July 1st, why wasn't this
error pointed out earlier before the moderator approved any postings in
this category? Or should you complain only after the moderator
has committed an oversight ?
>Cheers,
>Ken <*>
>kstuart@mail.telis.org
Moderator : Is there a separate category you can open for nitpicking
you only ? You can call it NITPICK
That article can contain this :
**
Subject : NITPICK : Moderator does not read WWW fully.
'In an article approved by the moderator, the poster mentions a site. Though
the site has over 1 Megabyte of information, there is a link to some material
which can be construed as sexual. Is this how a family group of SRH managed ?'
**
A similar article was posted regarding the tantric site, as SRH
readers would recall.
Giri
