2010.01.16 18:39
|
2010.01.16 19:09
2010.01.17 06:35
The Sigetop committee is the one to direct these questions.
But such issues may be casually discussed here without telling them what to do.
After all, we can discuss anything about anything.
One thing, in common stance with Sigetop editors, regarding religious articles,
many websites and newspapers don't like religious articles especially dealing with
fundamental religious issues. These things can get very sticky and downright severly biased.
Sigetop, any alumni newspapers, or websites are not religious publications.
I agree with Sigetop's stance on religious articles, simply because they have very limted space
and has no immediate facility to counter (or to be contrary to) someone's article.
Newspapers are generally one way speeches and are not a place for questions, answers, or discussions.
In our website, it's OK to write religious articles, mainly in the context of philosophical views.
I do not want any one of them to be in missionary, selfish, or non-accommodative stances.
As the website manager, at times, I had to write a contrary views in the comment
to have some of them as balanced presentations.
Here in our website, one can immediately disagree or express contray opinions in the same page.
So far, our ship seems to be sailing well without being pushed toward one way or the other.
I will try to steer our website toward the neutral direction because it is for all alumni.
I am only philosophically religious and do not belong or favor to any particular organized religions.
By the way, is there anybody that knows why they Forbid followings?
1) English-writing as first generation on Sigetop, but OK as second generation
( Out of Nationalistc Point of View?)
2) Any religious article
3) Any articles printed on other medium.They want Original.
(Is Sigetop for Ascending to Professional Level?)
I call them as Sigetop's 3-No-Policy.
It does not matter with me but why are they so prohibitive?
They use almost 1/3 of fund raised among alumni in USA.
They should be More Inclusive, Not Exclusive.
Then Why?