alien@cpoint.UUCP (Alien Wells) (11/01/89)
For those that are interested, here is the text of the article that was posted to alt.sex. I've removed the attribution to try to keep the flaming down, if you want to see who it was go check it out yourself (it was NOT Richard). Also note that any 'r' replies would have gone to the poster, not to Richard. I can't see how anyone could be confused by it. The people in alt.sex certainly were not, there were immediate follup postings warning anyone who might have been unaware. Furthermore, there was a continuing thread discussing the possible censorship of alt.sex. I think that it is clear the following is a rather harmless prank that wasn't meant to confuse anyone and probably didn't. If anything, it probably generated a few NO votes from people that he pissed off. The only reason I am posting it is to try to put things in context, since I've seen a number of postings using things like this to call the validity of the sci.aquaria vote into question. In article <xxxx> xxxx (xxxx) writes: > >That's right, alt.sex is going to be completely discontinued. > >What can YOU do about it? > >A vote is being taken by richard@gryphon.com to keep alt.sex going. If >you would like to see alt.sex continued, send email to: > > richard@gryphon.com > >In your note, be sure to say "I vote YES for Sci.aquaria." And here are the replies it generated: 1 Obviously, this is some b.s. attempt to get people to vote for a new 1 newsgroup called sci.aquaria. I hope nobody is falling for it. 2 I'm glad there are people like Ed around to point out things that we 2 slower folks might have missed. Oh, by the way, :-) :-) :-) 3 Subtle, Mr. xxxx very subtle. 3 You are the type of person to post a personal: 3 THIS IS YOUR LAST DAY TO SEND $1!!!!! 3 #include <address> Obviously, they weren't confused ...