Path: utzoo!mnetor!geac!jtsv16!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Some observations on this whole mess. Message-ID: <6909@ficc.uu.net> Date: 10 Nov 89 15:24:10 GMT References: <11171@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2752@cpoint.UUCP> <6803@ficc.uu.net> <1989Nov4.170406.11407@alembic.acs.com> <1989Nov10.043823.6732@alembic.acs.com> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 68 In article <1989Nov10.043823.6732@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > You can't be serious. You agree with me? This is almost funny. I've been saying things like this for months now. I'm the guy who started the whole Single Transferrable Vote process off. I even held a vote *using* it. The only reason I've been pushing simpler proposals is because anything more complex is, well, too complex. > >> The last time I suggested this, you screamed bloody murder because I > >> included a statement to the effect that those who voted NO for the group > >> shouldn't have any say in its name. > >That's right, and I still claim that. Your argument against it was also totally > >without merit. > I guess you didn't read the next couple of paragraphs before you wrote > this, right? You wouldn't just take a cheap shot, right? No, actually, I was cutting down the attributed text. I don't see the cheap shot. Your argument against allowing NO voters to vote on the name, that is that they might force the group into an inappropriate place, is totally without merit. Simply because (as I commented later on... what's this about cheap shots) if they can't form a voting block good enough to kill the group they certainly won't be able to so anything as subtle as this. And to put my monet where my mouth is: when I held the vote on talk. computers, I explicitly requested a vote on the name from ALL "no" voters. > >Exactly. And, FOR THE SAME REASON, spoilers won't be the deciding factor in > >any "100 NO vote" variant. All it will do (again, look at history) is force > >bozos to play by the rules. > You're amazing, Peter. You create a rule SPECIFICALLY to permit you and > your buddies to cancel a vote if you don't like the name, then you > make this statement. No, not if I don't like the name. If there is considerable controversy over the name. It's been in the guidelines from the beginning that there has to be agreement over the name before the vote starts. If there is general agreement on a name I think bad, that's too bad for me. It's happened in the past, comp.sw.components and comp.object for example, and will happen in the future. I voted YES for both these groups despite thinking the name was not the best possible, because there *was* agreement on the name. These three lines, I'll repeat them, are a complete distortion of what I've been arguing for, under multiple proposals, for months. I'm beginning to get a mite upset over them. -> You're amazing, Peter. You create a rule SPECIFICALLY to permit you and -> your buddies to cancel a vote if you don't like the name, then you -> make this statement. > You really do think the rest of us are stupid, don't you? *FLAME ON* Well, you're really trying hard to convince me. *FLAME OFF* -- `-_-' Peter da Silva . 'U` -------------- +1 713 274 5180. "*Real* wizards don't whine about how they paid their dues" -- Quentin Johnson quent@atanasoff.cs.iastate.edu