[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: soc.religion.vaishnava : admins overturn charter
-
To: ghen@netcom.com
-
Subject: Re: soc.religion.vaishnava : admins overturn charter
-
From: Vivek Sadananda Pai <vivek@cs.rice.edu>
-
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 16:27:13 -0500 (CDT)
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu, news.groups, soc.culture.indian
-
Organization: Hindu Students Conference, Rice Univ Chapter
-
References: <31E7FBD4.E09@EarthSpirit.org> <31FCF64E.4026@ecn.purdue.edu> <ghenDvDpAH.3s2@netcom.com> <31FFA11D.2336@ecn.purdue.edu>
In article <31FFA11D.2336@ecn.purdue.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Note that they have steadfastly not replied to any of
>Bon's or Kartik's posts in srv (about censorship), to keep the noise level
>down. But they have no qualms about posting a dozen messages to disrupt srh
>though.
I'd like to point out once again that it was the moderator of SRH who
_wanted_ the RFD discussion to take place on SRH, against the
objections of the reorg proponents.
The reorg proponents (correctly) stated that not everyone would be
interested in the discussion. Now it's extremely hypocritical for
anyone who supported that original decision to complain that there are
too many posts about the reorg on SRH.
What's more interesting are the series of questions which haven't been
answered for months. Heck, even the questions by people opposed to the
reorg haven't been answered. If I recall correctly, it was the same
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian who called up the SRH moderator to answer
whether posts purely on Buddhism would be allowed on SRH.
Why is it that RB's not making a stink about why _that_ question has
not been answered? It seems that he only wants certain people to
answer his questions, and he doesn't mind it when others don't. Again,
it seems that his questions about ethics, integrity, etc., etc., all
ring hollow in light of how selectively he applies his own standards.
-Vivek
