Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!milano!bigtex!pmafire!geoff
From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Proposed Guidelines Change (was Re: A Few Observations)
Message-ID: <864@pmafire.UUCP>
Date: 17 Nov 89 16:03:54 GMT
References: <1989Nov10.045531.4549@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> <36393@apple.Apple.COM> <1626@crdos1.crd.ge.COM> <2562D3D9.16489@ateng.com> <5289@ncar.ucar.edu> <5806@unix.SRI.COM>
Reply-To: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho
Lines: 32

In article <5806@unix.SRI.COM> maslak@unix.UUCP (Valerie Maslak) writes:
>Greg, I don't have the figures at hand, but would this additional
>criterion [requiring a 2/3 majority] have made any difference at all in
>the comp.women controversy?

While I don't have the data for comp.women, requiring a 2/3 majority
*would* have caused sci.aquaria to fail.

Check out the following article by me:

	From: geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen)
	Newsgroups: news.groups
	Subject: Recent Voting Stats
	Message-ID: <855@pmafire.UUCP>
	Date: 13 Nov 89 17:47:35 GMT
	Organization: WINCO Computer Engineering, INEL, Idaho
	Lines: 30

In it, I give the results of several recent votes.  Every vote in the
last month or so has passed by *at least* 2/3 (usually more like
80%-90%), with the notable exception of sci.aquaria.

[Acutally, I'm a little surprised at the lack of response to my article.
 Everyone was screaming `We need facts!  Where's the data?!'  Then I
 post some data and am greeted with silence.  What gives?  (I did get an
 e-mail response from Richard Shapiro, so I assume the article got out to
 y'all.) ]

-- 
Geoff Allen                  \  Driggs, Idaho -- cultural hub of the west!
{uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff  \
ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff   \  (Tom Harper in rec.skiing)