oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (11/25/89)
In article <4598@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.lonestar.org writes: >This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will >be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system: This is yet another whine of a sore loser, Peter. YOU LOST. SCI.AQUARIA passed. You PROMISED to shut up and go away whichever way the vote had gone. So what's your problem NOW?! SCI.AQUARIA is giving you nightmares?! > alt.aquaria It is a minor blessing that ALT hierarchy is outside of your grabby paws and megalomaniacal aspirations to control the look and behaviour of the NET. > sci.aquaria > It passed by the existing guidelines by a margin of 40 votes. Just because you have a strange tendency to twist and re-interpret these GUIDELINES (and NOT laws!) whenever it suits you, does not invalidate the vote results or the existence of the group. >Due to the controversy over the name, distribution is spotty. YOU were instrumental in engineering that "controversy". The "controversy" was that you and a few other zealots of the "purity of SCI" and "order in the NET" were outraged by the audacity of a suggestion that SCI may have been a proper place for an AQUARIA group. TOUGH. >There are other people who are opposed to >the name rec.aquaria because they believe it will attract a lower class of >posters, since people are likely to give more thought to postings if >they're in a scientific forum. That's a very dishonest attempt to pervert the reasons so many of us were in favour of a SCI group. Anyone who really cares about those reasons can go back to the discussions that took place about a month ago in news.groups. I was hoping you were above something as deplorable as an outright lie, Peter. You are not. >If no candidate acheives the required 100 vote margin, the existing group >alt.aquaria will remain. ALT.AQUARIA will most probably remain regardless of any votes you will hold here. Or do you want a "newgroup/rmgroup" war, Peter? Your linear ordering of the "preferences" list is offensive and insulting. This is nolonger just ALT vs. REC vs. SCI issue, if you have not yet realized it. *I* want rec.aquaria AND sci.aquaria to exist. And don't even THINK about touching ALT.aquaria. ALT hierarchy was created specifically to avoid the fights with petty little fascists like you. My vote is to have you gagged, handcuffed and forced to read all postings to soc.singles, alt.sex, talk.religion.misc, talk.politics.misc and talk.abortion but unfortunately that may not be an option. Can I vote to have you shut up and GO AWAY ALREADY?! -- "No regrets, no apologies" Ronald Reagan Oleg Kiselev ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM (213)337-5230 UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (11/26/89)
Sigh. I'll just have to put !/weasel/h:k! into my kill file now, I suppose.
The purpose of a vote, name poll, whatever is to convince the majority of
Usenet admins and owners that a given proposal is well thought out and has
the broad support of the net as a whole. Richard's vote didn't do that, as
the poor distribution of sci.aquaria shows. I'm hoping this vote will redress
this omission.
If sci.aquaria wins without a massive charge of fraud, well and good. I hope
to avoid accusations of favoritism on that front.
I have been considering discarding all votes from FICC, Sugar, and Gryphon, by
the way. This should help reduce further any suggestions of impropriety. Maybe
I'll just do the tally twice.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "Really, a video game is nothing more than a Skinner box."
-- Peter Merel <pete@basser.oz>