sblair@synoptics.com (Steven Blair) (10/19/90)
[Oh goody, here we go again.] John, you're wrong again. Please admit it. Take the floggings. Post an apology, please for all of our sakes. You did not follow the guidelines, and it's becoming increasingly annoying(to me, in *my opinion*) to even see your name in this group. Even I admit when I'm wrong, ask my users, and friends!!!! Many of us who run sites, even if you post a call for votes that follows the guidelines, will not vote for your proposal. Many more of us will completely ignore a newgroups message from you. Therefore, your attempts could only possibly be successful, and at that, only in a few sites. If the wizards who started this many moons ago would like to start a call for votes(and the "wizards" are a known entity), then and only then will I pay attention to any further discussions on this topic. Period. Erik Fair's message from last week still stands. Erik is the moderator for the email list, and many more folks will pay attention to him, than you... best regards(you're now in my KILL file ---->>RIP Stevie Ray Vaughan 1954-1990 You Will Be *Missed*<<---- -- Steven C. Blair Network Operations Center SynOptics Communications Inc. Mountain View, California INTERNET: sblair@synoptics.com sblair@excalibur.synoptics.com PROBLEMS/EMAIL: HOSTMASTER@SYNOPTICS.COM postmaster@synoptics.com ---->>RIP Stevie Ray Vaughan 1954-1990 You Will Be *Missed*<<----
jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk (Jonathan Knight) (10/22/90)
From article <1990Oct18.104544@synoptics.com>, by sblair@synoptics.com (Steven Blair): This was posted in reply to John F Haugh > Many of us who run sites, even if you post a call for votes that > follows the guidelines, will not vote for your proposal. That's your problem. If you don't want the group then vote NO. Stop sulking on the sidelines and get involved. > Many more of us will > completely ignore a newgroups message from you. Dipstick. So your gonna ignore the newgroup, and all the checkgroups that follow it. Some news admin you are. > Therefore, your > attempts could only possibly be successful, and at that, only in a few sites. He'll be succesful if the person in charge of posting checkgroup messages thinks he has fulfilled the requirements to get the group listed. It takes a lot of effort to consistantly ignore the checkgroups message especially with junk filling up. > If the wizards who started this many moons ago would like to start a > call for votes(and the "wizards" are a known entity), then and only > then will I pay attention to any further discussions on this topic. Period. Oh goody. No followup to this article. > Erik Fair's message from last week still stands. Erik is the moderator > for the email list, and many more folks will pay attention to him, than > you... But a later message said that Erik was watching the outcome of this vote. What he'll do when its known is another question altogether. It's simple. If you don't want the group then send in a NO vote. If John slipped up in not posting to news.announce.newgroups then it was obviuosly unintentional. He did not want to hide the vote from anyone as he posted the vote call to all the groups who had readers who would be interested. -- ______ JANET :jonathan@uk.ac.keele.cs Jonathan Knight, / BITNET:jonathan%cs.kl.ac.uk@ukacrl Department of Computer Science / _ __ other :jonathan@cs.keele.ac.uk University of Keele, Keele, (_/ (_) / / UUCP :...!ukc!kl-cs!jonathan Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K.