Xref: utzoo talk.religion.newage:5392 news.groups:16457
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,news.groups
Subject: Re: talk.religion.pagan
Message-ID: <2022@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 16 Jan 90 16:20:53 GMT
References: <130242@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <9695@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Followup-To: talk.religion.newage
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 17

In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:

| Wouldn't it be better if some backbone site set up an automatic vote
| receiver/counter/confirmer?  

  In a word, no. I have taken a few votes for various things, and I have
always seen votes which were clear to a human but not to casual software.
Since you offered to write the software quickly I assume that you are
not talking about a major AI project, which might take a year or so.

  As long as the voters are reported and the voters check their votes,
there is a minimal chance of the moderator influencing the vote. I can't
see enough evil in the counts (now that we have the 2/3 rule) to justify
yet another change in the way we do things.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
            "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me