rsex@stb.UUCP (02/23/90)
>From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) <F5X1JK8xds13@ficc.uu.net> > >In article <4291@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: >> The reason for that banning seems to be gone. > >In a manner of speaking. The reason sci.aquaria is blocked at many sites is >that a number of people do not accept the validity of the vote creating it. >If you were to hold a new vote and it were to pass, I think that you would >discover that the blockage would go away as well. "I think" the blockage would go away ? Like, you have this theory ? Like, we should have another vote on sci.aquaria based on the hope that a semi-ordered synaptic discharge in Peter da Silvas brain will indeed manifest itself as reality in 30,000 computer sites around the world. Between this and Kent Paul Dolan offering to ``count'' the votes I have come to the obvious conclusion that I am asleep and having a very bad dream. Somebody please wake me when this is over. >If in fact the group has turned out to be an appropriate and well behaved >sci group, then you should have little problem getting the votes needed to >create the group. If in fact people voted objectively and for reasons other than emotion this would probably be true. But they don't and it isn't.