berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) (10/27/89)
In article <35951@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >You posted to news.groups, not news.announce.newgroups. It was later >transferred, but that's against protocol. You also neglected to include >rec.pets, even though there was a significant overlap of interest there >because of the naming. I love it. When a group follows the rules and isn't created, we are told that the rules are simply "a guide." I haven't seen a single fish posting in rec.pets, have you? >If *I* were Greg, I would have rejected the call for votes on this point. If you were gay, would you be attracted to me? >You have been politicking this vote mercilessly since the announcement, >which is in violation of this rule. This is a great setup for.... > I hereby wish to >request that everyone who thinks this situation is out of control but >hasn't voted yet to please send in a "no" vote, so if Greg doesn't rule the >vote invalid we can still keep from creating sci.aquaria until we figure >out what the right thing really is. Please send richard a no vote if... Hey, did anybody see the commercials for the gubernatorial race in New Jersey where each candidate showed the other one's nose getting longer as they spoke? So your position is that we shouldn't abide by the vote unless the result is NO? Get a grip. >The second major violation bothers me even more -- I've had some people >write and tell me that they've been asked to vote *for* sci.aquaria, even >though they aren't interested one way or another. And we are supposed to take this at face value? I'm not interested and he hasn't asked me... Actually, I'm having a very tough time figuring out where in the rules it is specified that people voting on a particular group have to have some sort of interest. I see your name on just about every vote that comes down the pike. What are you, some kind of Renaissance man? Why is it that since you have such a wide range of knowledge and interests that you don't have better things to worry about? > One can argue that he's simply continuing to argue his >position in the debate over the group and the name, but that simply returns >to the point that the name was never made a consensus, and therefore the >vote call was incorrect there. He's continuing to argue his point because the other side is doing the same damn thing. As far as the name consensus goes, there was a somewhat small poll in which sci.aquaria won a PLURALITY of the votes. Granted it didn't sweep the Electoral College, but... Just how was this consensus supposed to form? By the endless cycle of "'tis" and "'tis not" that preceded the mercifull call for a vote. >My sources, by the way, currently show that the voting is running about 270 >Yes to 200 No (or some such -- it's about 70 positive; not currently enough >to succeed -- and with an exceptionally large NO contingent). I see. So posting mid-term results is illegal but posting entirely fabricated figures to mislead readers is fine. Curious principle that. Folks, do we need martyrs like Chuqles looking out for "our best interests." Only YOU can prevent such a tragedy. Send that YES vote to richard@gryphon.com -- John Berryhill "Tasty Snacks in Cellophane Packs" 143 King William, Newark DE 19711