[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: INFO : Artificial Justification for Info Group
vivek@cs.rice.edu (Vivek Sadananda Pai) writes:
>In article <ghenDvE57I.Jrz@netcom.com>,
>Giri <gmadras@pinto.engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>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?
If you kindly will, please read my post again. I thanked Ken for
pointing out what an INFO article meant, since I was unaware of it. I felt
that if he had pointed this out earlier then posts like mine would have
been avoided but unfortunately it was pointed out only after the moderator
had approved two articles with the title INFO.
Regarding Ken's one week delay, the moderator described Info postings
on July 1st. If Ken felt insulted by my post, I am sorry since that wasn't
my intention.
Further, the moderator's oversight can be pointed out in private.
I have myself written many times personally to the moderator to improve
certain policies and tell what the policies are. And each time, Ajay has
replied to me within a week or two.
>Double standards, perhaps?
You may view it as anything you like it to be. FYI, double standards
are practiced by even vaishnavites (though it may be just one)
or maybe the bot set itself up to censor some poster.
>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
I agree that a policy regarding this is important. But you should
also be aware a moderator is not capable of visiting each site advertised
and reading it thoroughly to find there is any tantric material on the
site. For example, I maintain sites which have approximately 20 Megabyte
of information, and there is a link to certain sites which may be
construed as sexual. Is it reasonable for you to expect that the moderator
goes throgh 20 Megabyte of information for just clearing one post ?
Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion,
Giri
