Xref: utzoo comp.groupware:584 alt.flame:33968
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bloom-beacon!mintaka!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sample.eng.ohio-state.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.groupware,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Reform Trial.* (was: Trial flawed)
Keywords: group creation votes preference
Message-ID: <1991Jun1.000337.7833@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 1 Jun 91 00:03:37 GMT
References: <1991May30.144345.15890@gorm.ruc.dk> <1991May31.022710.11297@looking.on.ca> <1991May31.192813.28009@gorm.ruc.dk>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 19

In article <1991May31.192813.28009@gorm.ruc.dk> david@gorm.ruc.dk (David Stodolsky) writes:

>How do we choose the right criterion?

By using our heads? Neah, that's too easy. How about by being calm for
a change?

>brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>It is not efficient in human or machine resources for a discussion group
>>of 100 people to have a discussion distributed to 20,000 machines.  In the
>
>Support this statement - if you can.

If we were to set a rough limit based on what Brad thinks is a good
idea or what you think is a good idea, you'd lose. Now learn a few
things about inter-personal interaction and maybe everyone won't spend
all of their time laughing at you. Comp.groupware, indeed. I thought
this was going to be an interesting group when I voted for it, not
just your private soapbox.