Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!dfsun1!fenske
From: fenske@dfsun1.electro.swri.edu (Robert Fenske Jr)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Some observations on this whole mess.
Summary: Interest in voting
Message-ID: <1455@dfsun1.electro.swri.edu>
Date: 13 Nov 89 15:08:15 GMT
References: <1989Nov7.164109.2960@twwells.com> <1989Nov8.151932.1640@uncecs.edu> <36315@apple.Apple.COM> <2392@stl.stc.co.uk> <1451@dfsun1.electro.swri.edu> <1437@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: fenske@dfsun1.UUCP (Robert Fenske Jr)
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
Lines: 21

In article <1437@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes:
>I mean, what does it mean to say
>a "NO voter" is "interested in the question" of sci.aquaria?  I mean,
>most NO votes have to do with naming questions, cost considerations,
>and so on, and perhaps nothing whatever to do with the subject of the
>group at hand.  So if you accept NO votes that are not based on interest
>in the subject, in this case aquaria, then how can you not accept YES
>votes of the same sort?

No, I meant nothing so restrictive.  Certainly, people can have a vested
interest (or meta-interest if you will) in factors, such as you listed,
not related to the subject of the group.  I just wish there would be some
way to reject votes that stem from no thought about any matter except that
someone asked them to vote or just voting against someone else; which is
probably the root of people's beef against the apparent "voting blocks"
in the recent sci.aquaria vote.
-- 
Robert Fenske, Jr.                      Sw     | The Taming the C*sm*s series:
Electromagnetics Division              /R---\  |
Southwest Research Institute          | I    | | "The Martian canals were the
dfsun1.electro.swri.edu 129.162.160.4  \----/  |  Martian's last ditch effort."