Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!cbnewsj!jwi
From: jwi@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: My last word on sci.aquaria
Summary: Incorrect assumption
Message-ID: <1724@cbnewsj.ATT.COM>
Date: 30 Oct 89 21:52:30 GMT
References: <7308@fear+loathing.UUCP> <2341@vulpes.COM> <21589@gryphon.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18

In article <21589@gryphon.COM>, oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> 
> I get a feeling that the majority of people voting NO on sci.aquaria are
> those who weren't able to keep their goldfish alive when they were 10 and are
> still so warped by the guilt and resentment that all mention of aquaria as a
> serious subject causes them to react in a most peculiar way.

No, Oleg, many of the people who are voting NO on sci.aquaria are those who
are irritated at Richard's attempt to walk over anybody who doesn't agree
with him. My NO vote is against Richard, regardless of the name he supports.

Jim Winer -- The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
	     and do not represent nor in any way imply
	     of any other sane person and especially not
	     employer.
"My reply is that such pre-theoretical conceptual essences are often
riddled with deep ambiguity and internal incoherence, despite strong
convictions people have that they know what they mean." -- Aaron Sloman