Xref: utzoo news.groups:15030 alt.aquaria:4916 alt.flame:12797 sci.aquaria:68 alt.config:1330
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!seismo!sundc!newstop!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!gryphon!oleg
From: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.aquaria,alt.flame,sci.aquaria,alt.config
Subject: Peter da Silva is trying to be a weasel
Message-ID: <22696@gryphon.COM>
Date: 25 Nov 89 11:08:11 GMT
References: <4598@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: oleg@gryphon.COM (Oleg Kiselev)
Followup-To: news.groups,alt.flame
Organization: HASA
Lines: 60

In article <4598@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.lonestar.org writes:
>This is a call for votes on the name of an aquarium newsgroup. The vote will
>be held by the Single Transferrable Vote system:

This is yet another whine of a sore loser, Peter.  YOU LOST.  SCI.AQUARIA
passed.  You PROMISED to shut up and go away whichever way the vote had gone.
So what's your problem NOW?!  SCI.AQUARIA is giving you nightmares?!

>	alt.aquaria

It is a minor blessing that ALT hierarchy is outside of your grabby paws and
megalomaniacal aspirations to control the look and behaviour of the NET.

>	sci.aquaria
>		It passed by the existing guidelines by a margin of 40 votes. 

Just because you have a strange tendency to twist and re-interpret these
GUIDELINES (and NOT laws!) whenever it suits you, does not invalidate the
vote results or the existence of the group.

>Due to the controversy over the name, distribution is spotty.

YOU were instrumental in engineering that "controversy".  The "controversy"
was that you and a few other zealots of the "purity of SCI" and "order in the
NET" were outraged by the audacity of a suggestion that SCI may have been a
proper place for an AQUARIA group.  TOUGH.

>There are other people who are opposed to
>the name rec.aquaria because they believe it will attract a lower class of
>posters, since people are likely to give more thought to postings if
>they're in a scientific forum.

That's a very dishonest attempt to pervert the reasons so many of us were
in favour of a SCI group.  Anyone who really cares about those reasons can go
back to the discussions that took place about a month ago in news.groups.

I was hoping you were above something as deplorable as an outright lie,
Peter.  You are not.

>If no candidate acheives the required 100 vote margin, the existing group
>alt.aquaria will remain.

ALT.AQUARIA will most probably remain regardless of any votes you will hold
here.  Or do you want a "newgroup/rmgroup" war, Peter?

Your linear ordering of the "preferences" list is offensive and insulting.
This is nolonger just ALT vs. REC vs. SCI issue, if you have not yet realized
it.  *I* want rec.aquaria AND sci.aquaria to exist.  And don't even THINK
about touching ALT.aquaria.  ALT hierarchy was created specifically to avoid
the fights with petty little fascists like you.

My vote is to have you gagged, handcuffed and forced to read all postings to
soc.singles, alt.sex, talk.religion.misc, talk.politics.misc and talk.abortion
but unfortunately that may not be an option.  Can I vote to have you shut up
and GO AWAY ALREADY?!
-- 
			"No regrets, no apologies"   Ronald Reagan

Oleg Kiselev            ARPA: lcc.oleg@seas.ucla.edu, oleg@gryphon.COM
(213)337-5230           UUCP: [world]!{ucla-se|gryphon}!lcc!oleg