[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : SRH Reorganization
In article <ghenDw56qM.CFn@netcom.com>,
Global Hindu Electronic Network <ghen@netcom.com> wrote:
>So do you support the immoral censorship and spaming acts in SRV by these
>proponents of SRH reorganization? Perhaps you'd like to comment upon
>what has happened in SRV?
Before you make these sorts of claims, Mr. Shah, please get your facts
straight. The spamming has _not_ been attributed to anyone, and in
fact, the only thing Badri's been able to say about it is that it's
gone through anonymous remailers, whereas my posts have been very
easily verifiable. So, do you have some inside knowledge of who's
doing the spamming, Mr. Shah? After all, you've jumped all over the
SRV issue in order to attack the SRH reorg.
Secondly, I think if you want to claim immoral censorship, then you
should be more than willing to allow all of those articles on SRH,
right? Would you like to see them on SRH? Do you think the SRH
readership would like that?
>Do you think that they want to control SRH by extra-charter
>*retromoderation* the way they controlled, censored, and spammed SRV?
Speaking of extra-charter, Mr. Shah, please tell us of the multiple
unilateral decisions you've made on SRH and where exactly those are
spelled out in the charter. The first, of course, is the inconsistent
application of the "not directly relevant" clause. While that clause
may have been made after an request for comments period, other clauses
were added unilaterally, such as the "no adult topics" clause. In
fact, you even suggested that it was your power as a moderator to make
such unilateral decisions without consulting the readership at all.
That last clause still hasn't been fully explained, and it's
application has been as inconsistent as the first clause. Perhaps you
can also explain why Bobby Gupta seems to have gotten most of his
articles rejected, and many of his articles _silently_ rejected, even
after repeated submission attempts. Would you call _that_ censorship,
Mr. Shah?
>I hope to see your comments on SRV censorship and spamming issue, after
>all you were quite vocal on SRH re-org issue...
Interesting, Mr. Shah, that you should jump into this matter since it
only involves the proponents, and not the proposed moderators, of the
SRH reorg. If you really believed that your questions have any merit,
why is it that you invited one of the proposed moderators to join the
"moderation appeals committee"? Oh yes, and please show where the SRH
charter has provisions for that committee.
-Vivek
