pst@comdesign.uucp (Paul Traina) (06/16/88)
From article <4342@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>, by spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford): > Some people have pointed out that there were 160 "no" votes for > comp.women. Correct. But there were also 272 "yes" votes -- from > people who felt the naming issue wasn't important enough to > keep from creating the group. Seems to me that 272 > 160, hmmm? > 272 is an a lot of people to express an opinion, too. 272 - 160 = 112 more yes votes than no votes. By our semi-legitimate --------------- guidelines, the group has passed the test. People want comp.women. I'm one of the people who don't want comp.women (to be called comp.women), but we're a bunch of filthy hypocrites if we don't make this group. It's no use hiding behind technicalities such as group names et al. We've probably created more traffic talking about comp.women's creation/name than that group will carry in 6 months. I would go ahead myself and make the newgroup message if I wasn't certain that it would cause bad feelings among the backbone (and I was certain of the vote report). Will someone "from a respected machine" please make this group so we can get on with our lives? It's fine for sysadmin's to not carry the group on their machine, but S/HE who cast's the first rmgroup will live in infamy. Paul on with our lives? -- work: home: comdesign!pst@pyramid.com pst@ai.ai.mit.edu ...!pyramid!comdesign!pst ...!ucbvax!ucsbcsl!nessus!pst pst@sbitp.bitnet