Xref: utzoo talk.religion.newage:5393 news.groups:16458
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!walt.cc.utexas.edu!olorin
From: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.newage,news.groups
Subject: Re: talk.religion.pagan
Message-ID: <23235@ut-emx.UUCP>
Date: 16 Jan 90 16:33:04 GMT
References: <130242@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <9695@hoptoad.uucp>
Sender: news@ut-emx.UUCP
Reply-To: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Dave Weinstein)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 76

In article <9695@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>In article <130174@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow)
>writes:
>>>>***    Remember to VOTE YES to talk.religion.pagan (moderated).   ***
>>>>***             Send your vote To: olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu      ***
>
>In article <9659@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes:
>>>In a message posted on 12 January 1990, after the conclusion of the voting
>>>period.  Obviously this is an individual deeply concerned about the ethics
>>>of newsgroup creation and control.
>
>In article <130242@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@sun.UUCP (William A. Turnbow)
>writes:
>>	Actually Tim, I don't give a poop.
>>	I'll keep my .sig file as it is though until I see the vote.  Why are
>>you so hostile to letting other people have something they want?  Are you
>>so much into controlling other people's lives, wants and desires?
>
>So, Turnbow not only admits that he consciously solicited votes for the
>group after the end of the voting period, he says that he will continue
>to do so, and that he doesn't give a shit for ethics.  The only rationale
>cited is that he wants the new group.

	And Turnbow is not collecting the votes. I have refrained from
any sort of campaigning (and in fact had nothing to do with his decision
to plug the newsgroup in his .signature -- not that I really expect you
to believe that) throughout the creation process. Furthermore, if the
voting is closed, his .signature has no affect.

>What is most interesting about this message is that Turnbow apparently
>knew that the vote collector will continue to accept votes after the
>end of the voting period, yet he did not state the collector's excuse
>for doing so.  I will let the reader draw his or her own conclusions.

	He did not, for the same reason that no one else did -- I was
essentially out of contact with the net for the period that the votes were
bouncing -- and for the same reason.

>Something is very fishy here, and yes, I do intend the pun to refer to
>sci.aquaria.  If anyone sent votes to the collector between 2 Jan and
>10 Jan, please post to the net or send mail to me to that effect, and
>please mention whether you did or did not receive a confirmation.  In
>addition, the collector will please post a vote tally ASAP, with names
>of the voters; anyone whose vote was not counted or was counted
>incorrectly should post to news.groups or send mail to me.

  Well this at least is an improvement. Instead of insisting that the 
system downtime is a fraud, he is at now merely insinuating it. It is
simple enough to check the facts. There were at least two postings of
bounced votes (one in news.groups and one in talk.religion.newage), one
of which mentioned the fact that "olorin" was an unknown user. Furthermore,
a simple mail message to the site administrators would confirm the fact
that the systems were in fact down. But this does make the third time (by
my count) that you have attacked talk.religion.pagan and me personally
without checking the facts first. 

>This mess and sci.aquaria show a basic flaw in the newsgroup creation
>process.  The votes are taken by people who have a vested interest in
>the outcome of the vote, and who can very easily commit fraud or
>otherwise dissemble concerning the results.

  I am getting a bit upset at your continued references to the 
fights over sci.aquaria. I have continually attempted to avoid the
sorts of problems that cropped up during that vote (for example, there
was a referendum on the newsgroup name). I also resent the implication
that I have been in any way dishonest during this vote. While I do
admit to wanting to see talk.religion.pagan pass, it is not an issue of
such overwhelming importance to me that I would lie, cheat, or in any way
act dishonestly to see it do so.

--Dave

--- 
Dave Weinstein              GEnie: OLORIN
olorin@walt.cc.utexas.edu   olorin@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
Disclaimer: My employer has nothing to do with my opinions.