berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (11/26/89)
Why is Peter Da Silva conducting a vote on a group that already exists? Why was there no discussion period prior to this vote? Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the generally accepted guidelines? Why are his voting instructions biased against sci.aquaria? Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? Why has Greg Woods repeatedly refused to put in n.a.n. an announcement for a recently created mailing list that is a digest of alt.drugs while he has carried announcements for other mailing lists? Is Greg Woods being a fair-minded and unbiased moderator? Does Peter Da Saliva have a mind at all? -- John Berryhill Vidi, Vici, Veni 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (11/26/89)
In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > Why is Peter Da Silva conducting a vote on a group that already exists? Because the group does not exist at many sites, and is blocked or aliased to alt.aquaria. As I pointed out in a previous article, the purpose of a vote is to convince people that a proposal is not flawed and has the support of the majority of the net. This proposal did neither. > Why was there no discussion period prior to this vote? You really want one? > Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the > generally accepted guidelines? Because the generally accepted guidelines have failed to establish the validity of and support for the proposal. > Why are his voting instructions biased against sci.aquaria? The instructions are not biased. I laid out my bias for everyone to see in the discussion section, which is more than some folks do. I have no hidden agenda. > Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship > to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead > and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? Because I told him to. I was originally planning on starting the vote six days earlier, but he required confirmation before posting it just like he's done with other non-guideline polls. > Why has Greg Woods repeatedly refused to put in n.a.n. an announcement for > a recently created mailing list that is a digest of alt.drugs while he > has carried announcements for other mailing lists? I don't know. He failed to announce the C-FUTURES mailing list until I reminded him of it. He said he lost my mail. > Is Greg Woods being a fair-minded and unbiased moderator? Scrupulously. > Does Peter Da Saliva have a mind at all? Technically, yes. /: A Completely Irrelevant Exercise in Poor Sportsmanship/:j -- `-_-' Peter da Silva <peter@ficc.uu.net> <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "The basic notion underlying USENET is the flame." -- Chuq Von Rospach, chuq@Apple.COM
" Maynard) (11/26/89)
In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >Why is Peter Da Silva conducting a vote on a group that already exists? Actually, he's conducting a vote on a group that may not exist yet: rec.aquari{a,ums}. The STV system is being used to determine if the majority really _did_ vote for sci, or aquaria. Why are you threatened by that? >Why was there no discussion period prior to this vote? No discussion? NO DISCUSSION? Have you ignored the terabytes of discussion over the past couple of months, drowning out all else here? >Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the >generally accepted guidelines? Because it's the only way of settling the aquaria controversy. >Why are his voting instructions biased against sci.aquaria? Explain. I see no such bias. >Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship >to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead >and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? Because, I suspect, it was a legitimate call for votes. (Am I right, Greg?) >Why has Greg Woods repeatedly refused to put in n.a.n. an announcement for >a recently created mailing list that is a digest of alt.drugs while he >has carried announcements for other mailing lists? What does this have to do with your screed against Peter? For that matter, why should he, especially since he doesn't support the use of illegal drugs with his machine anyway? >Is Greg Woods being a fair-minded and unbiased moderator? Perhaps too much so. >Does Peter Da Saliva have a mind at all? More so than you...after all, he's not a mindless Richard Sexton sycophant. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (11/27/89)
In article <+0#S0.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>Why was there no discussion period prior to this vote? > >No discussion? NO DISCUSSION? Have you ignored the terabytes of >discussion over the past couple of months, drowning out all else here? There was no discussion for this particular vote. There was the required 14 day discussion period for the sci.aquaria vote, but I never saw a specific call for a discussion concerning an STV vote for *.aquaria. >>Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the >>generally accepted guidelines? > >Because it's the only way of settling the aquaria controversy. And anyone may select any voting scheme they like? Is this the new way to create groups? Fine. Everybody in favor of comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac raise your hand... Looks like the group passes as the majority of people I see have their hand up. >>Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship >>to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead >>and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? > >Because, I suspect, it was a legitimate call for votes. >(Am I right, Greg?) It is not a legitimate vote. Who or what conferred legitimacy upon this vote? Since when is DaSaliva's STV scheme the approved method of newsgroup creation? > For that >matter, why should he, especially since he doesn't support the use of >illegal drugs with his machine anyway? The reason I brought it up was to point out that Woods is being a biased moderator. So, news.announce.newgroups exists to announce the groups and lists that Greg *likes*, is that what you're saying. Furthermore, reading words on a screen and using drugs are two entirely different activities. -- John Berryhill Vidi, Vici, Veni 143 King William, Newark DE 19711
wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (11/27/89)
In article <+0#S0.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > >>Does Peter Da Saliva have a mind at all? > >More so than you...after all, he's not a mindless Richard Sexton >sycophant. Here, now ! I'll not stand idly by and have John besmirched so unfairly ! He may be mindless, but he's no Richard Sexton syncophant. Hold it... I mean, he may be sexless, but he's no Richard Mindplant syncotron. Ur, he may be less filling, but he tastes Richer. Anyway, his dad can beat up your dad. Any time. - - - - - - - - valuable coupon - - - - - - - clip and save - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (11/28/89)
In article <4782@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: | The reason I brought it up was to point out that Woods is being a biased | moderator. So, news.announce.newgroups exists to announce the groups and | lists that Greg *likes*, is that what you're saying. Furthermore, reading | words on a screen and using drugs are two entirely different activities. Greg's function is to eliminate items which are not calls for discussion, votes, or anouncements of voting results. If he started to screen stuff beyond that you would complain that he was censoring your postings. The people who actually do things on this net get enough flack they deserve without someone complaining about the job they do right. Greg decides is a posting is of the correct form and topic, not it it is good, just, deserving, grammatical, or binding. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon
edhew@xenitec.on.ca (Ed Hew) (11/28/89)
In article <4782@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: > >>>Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the >>>generally accepted guidelines? >> >>Because it's the only way of settling the aquaria controversy. > >And anyone may select any voting scheme they like? Is this the new >way to create groups? Fine. Everybody in favor of >comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac raise your hand... Looks like the group >passes as the majority of people I see have their hand up. > >>>Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship >>>to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead >>>and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? >> >>Because, I suspect, it was a legitimate call for votes. >>(Am I right, Greg?) > >It is not a legitimate vote. Who or what conferred legitimacy upon this >vote? Since when is DaSaliva's STV scheme the approved method of >newsgroup creation? My question: is this a "vote" (as per guidelines) or an opinion poll? (we could discuss whether the 2 are actually the same thing, but my question is not intended to spur discourse on semantics.) I have no problem responding to non-binding opinion polls, and as (per the guidelines) this *must* be a poll, I had no problem responding accordingly. Would someone care to set me straight? [from a previous poster....] >>For that matter, why should he, especially since he doesn't support >>the use of illegal drugs with his machine anyway? I could have fun with this one, but my keyboard hasn't been drinking tonight. :-) ...on the topic of irrelevent matter... (no one on the 'NET advocates illegal activities (chain letters, pyramid schemes excepted).... >The reason I brought it up was to point out that Woods is being a biased >moderator. So, news.announce.newgroups exists to announce the groups and >lists that Greg *likes*, is that what you're saying. Furthermore, reading >words on a screen and using drugs are two entirely different activities. I always found that Greg adhered to the "rules", but that has never prevented him from acceeding to someone's request for a "poll". Find the answer to my question above, and it'll help resolve this one. >Vidi, Vici, Veni 143 King William, Newark DE 19711 Ed. A. Hew SCO Authorized Technical Trainer Xeni/Con Corporation work: edhew@xenicon.uucp -or- ..!{uunet!}utai!lsuc!xenicon!edhew ->home: edhew@xenitec.on.ca -or- ..!{uunet!}watmath!xenitec!edhew # I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on floppy around here somewhere!
tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood WA3VQJ) (11/29/89)
In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >Why is Peter Da Silva conducting a vote on a group that already exists? >Why was there no discussion period prior to this vote? >Why is he using a voting scheme that has utterly no resemblance to the >generally accepted guidelines? >Why are his voting instructions biased against sci.aquaria? >Why did Greg Woods, knowing full well that this vote has no relationship >to any rules other than Da Silva's own delusions of grandeur, go ahead >and post it in news.announce.newgroups anyway? >Why has Greg Woods repeatedly refused to put in n.a.n. an announcement for >a recently created mailing list that is a digest of alt.drugs while he >has carried announcements for other mailing lists? Yes, why indeed! However, if we're going to start "re-voting" on misnamed groups, let's start with comp.society.women and sci.skeptic before we move on to sci.aquaria! Of course, we *should* start with news.groups; I feel it should be renamed "news.flame" or perhaps "news.flame.vote.revote.flame". Terry -- INTERNET: tjw@unix.cis.pitt.edu BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS CC-NET: 33802::tjw UUCP: {decwrl!decvax!idis, allegra, bellcore}!pitt!unix.cis.pitt.edu!tjw And if dreams could come true, I'd still be there with you, On the banks of cold waters at the close of the day. - as sung by Sally Rogers
woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods) (11/29/89)
>In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >>Why has Greg Woods repeatedly refused to put in n.a.n. an announcement for >>a recently created mailing list that is a digest of alt.drugs while he >>has carried announcements for other mailing lists? The explanation is quite simple: because I have never received such an announcement. Get your facts straight, please, before slandering me on the net. As for Peter's re-vote on the aquaria name: I can't win no matter what I do. If I refuse to post things that do not conform to the guidelines, I get flamed. If I even post them with a simple comment to the effect that the posting violates the guidelines, I get flamed. I just can't seem to do anything right. From now on, ANYTHING will be posted if it is a call for discussion, call for votes, or result of a vote (or a mailing list announcement). I will let others point out the guidelines violations and flame the author if they wish. My job as n.a.n moderator will ONLY be to ensure that the group contains only calls for discussion or vote, results of votes, or announcements of mailing lists (plus occasional administrativia which I shall try to keep to a minimum). --Greg
" Maynard) (11/29/89)
In article <11737@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes: >In article <+0#S0.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>In article <4763@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes: >>>Does Peter Da Saliva have a mind at all? >>More so than you...after all, he's not a mindless Richard Sexton >>sycophant. >Here, now ! I'll not stand idly by and have John besmirched so unfairly ! OK, so how do I fairly besmirch him? After all, he DOES deserve it... >He may be mindless, but he's no Richard Sexton syncophant. Hold it... I >mean, he may be sexless, but he's no Richard Mindplant syncotron. Ur, >he may be less filling, but he tastes Richer. "Less Richer!" "Tastes filling!" >Anyway, his dad can beat up your dad. Any time. Yeah, but my dad can out-dBASE his dad. Nyah. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com