[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Artificial Justification for Info Group
In article <ghenDvE57I.Jrz@netcom.com>,
Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>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.
Oh, Giri, how funny that you bring up this question now, when it was
asked _months_ ago. Yet, you try to insult Ken for his (belatedly,
according to you) pointing out that the articles tagged as INFO aren't
info articles at all. Why is it that Ken's one-week delay is so
offensive to you, yet you're now finally commenting on things from
months ago? Double standards, perhaps?
Now, about the sex site, I asked what the policy would be for posting
pointer to such a site, because it was stated that this group was to
be family-oriented. Note that other Tantric sites have been posted
since that time, so it appears that sexually explicit web sites are
OK, but any post which mentions sex is not. Don't you see why it's
important to clarify such matters? If the goal of this newsgroup is to
be some sort of kid-safe newsgroup, kids can access URLs posted here
quite easily, so it makes little sense to ban posts but allow URLs
containing the same material.
-Vivek
