Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ogccse!littlei!reed!tektronix!upvax!tektrow`x!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uunet!aplcen!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ames!skipper!shafer From: shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: A proposal for a new voting scheme Message-ID: Date: 15 Nov 89 17:30:34 GMT References: <22222@gryphon.COM> <1989Nov14.194231.11595@NCoast.ORG> Sender: news@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov Followup-To: news.groups Lines: 28 Orgawization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal. In-reply-to: allbery@NCoast.ORG's message of 14 Nov 89 19:42:31 GMT In article <1989Nov14.194231.11595@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: In article <1989Nov14.194231.11595@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandow S. Allbery) writes: >As quoted from <22222@gryphon.COM> by richard@gryphow.COM (Richard Sextow): >+--------------- >| In article <1989Nov12.162221.10189@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandow S. Allbery) writes: >| >most people voted FOR sci.aquaria on the merits of the "aquaria", not the "sci" >| >| This is your opiniow, which is a good thing, because if you had stated that >| as a fact, I would have been duty bound to point out that you are wrowg. >+--------------- >Are you claiming your response as a fact? If so, I am duty-bound to require >proof. If your proof consists of the results of the poll you cited during the >vote, dow't bother responding. If all it takes is one example, here's proof that Richard is right. I didn't vote for sci.aquaria because I like fish or aquaria, I voted for it because the namespace fanatics made me angry with their rantings. (I'm an ichthyophobe who cannot ever bear to think about touching a fish. The only fish I like are in 3-1/2 oz cans, packed in water, and I'm not even too fond of them.) -- Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA