Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!texbell!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Results of sci.aquaria vote
Keywords: Yes 466, No 320, Maybe 1
Message-ID: <3029@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 11 Nov 89 10:27:24 GMT
References: <21911@gryphon.COM> <3012@splut.conmicro.com> <3650@nigel.udel.EDU> <3023@splut.conmicro.com> <3759@nigel.udel.EDU>
Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 52

In article <3759@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes:
>In article <3023@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>> Just goes to show
>>the depths that the sci.aquaria.zealots would go to.)
>Zealot!? Bah!  Just where is my name on the list of voters, Jay?

Just because you didn't vote YES doesn't mean you're not a zealot; your
postings here give you away. If you don't feel that strongly about the
group, why are you so vehement in your support?

>>In article <3650@nigel.udel.EDU> berryh@udel.edu (John Berryhill) writes:
>>>In article <3012@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>>>Only 59.3% YES is also probably the lowest percentage of any vote ever.
>>>>Doesn't that tell you something?
>>>That sci.aquaria is more popular than George Bush was?
>>Irrelevant.
>Equally as relevant as your observation.  You show me in the rules where
>it says that 59.3% isn't good enough?  I hope you took into account the
>AUTOMATIC NO vote feature that was incorporated into Banyan's login
>program.

Only if you'll take into account the various YES-generators.

The point of my comment is that sci.aquaria got less proportional
support than any other group. The controversy level surrounding this
whole affair is the highest ever. Is it any wonder that siteadmins out
there who normally support passing along any group that gets voted in
are taking a good hard look at this one?

The more I look at this, the more I believe that Richard Sexton set out
to make a mockery of the process, just as Bob Webber did with
comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac.

>>I know the rules quite well. One good thing that probably will come out
>>of this charade: the rules will probably get improved so that this won;t
>>happen again.
>Fine.  The key word above is "again."

Oh, you think that changing the rules to prevent another travesty is
"fine"...just don't step on my group? Bah.

>>And to me. I suspect, though, that what it says depends on whether or
>>not you're a Richard Sexton sycophant.
>From a zealot to a sycophant and I didn't even vote YES.  Imagine that.

Your posts give you away.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com       (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
Shall we try for comp.protocols.tcp-ip.eniac next, Richard? - Brandon Allbery