Xref: utzoo news.groups:2157 alt.flame:1223
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!homxb!ho95e!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.flame
Subject: Re: On why YOU should still vote no on: comp.sources.games.bugs
Message-ID: <702@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: 9 Jan 88 04:14:12 GMT
References: <1795@epimass.EPI.COM> <696@brandx.rutgers.edu> <6960@ncoast.UUCP>
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 55

WIDGET WARS!

In article <6960@ncoast.UUCP<, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
< As quoted from <696@brandx.rutgers.edu< by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber):
< +---------------
< | groups had more messages than comp.sources.bugs.  This is really a case
< | where using the old n key is the real answer!  There are groups on the
< | net that had over a thousand messages last month -- GET REAL.
< +---------------
< 
< Mr. Webber, the newsgroup rules say NOTHING about required volume.  If we
<had to wait for a newsgroup to reach the volume of soc.singles, we might never
< see any new newsgroups... and often there are valid reasons for those news-
< groups.  The rules say "100 more yes votes than no votes" -- which obviously
< there are in the case of comp.sources.bugs.games.

No.  The rules say 100 more yes votes after 30 days.  But anyway,
I never said the rules said anything about ``volume''.  However, since
``volume'' is the ``justification'' offered for creating such a group,
it seemed worthwhile pointing out that it was a bogus ``justification.''

< +---------------
< | In article <1795@epimass.EPI.COM<, jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) writes:
< | < Computer Center <cca.ucsf.edu!root<
< <---------------------------------^^^^  Pay attention, Mr. Webber!  *ROOT*!

I saw that.  Given the way some machines are run, I did not find it surprising
that someone decided to put a building in charge of a machine.

< | < Lord of the Rats <uunet!ucscc.UCSC.EDU!therat%ucscb.UCSC.EDU<
< | < Snoopy <snoopy@doghouse.GWD.TEK.COM<
< | 
< | Hmmm.  Would the three you want to add happen to be a building, a
< | rodent, and a cartoon character?  For that matter, it looked like
< | someone out in California even let a Beach Bum vote.  This looks like
< | the most flagrant case of ballot stuffing I have ever seen.  
< +---------------
< 
< The fact that someone chooses to use a "funny pseudonym" (longstanding net
< tradition, just as with .signatures) or posts from their root account does
< not mean that they are false users.  *Or* false votes, in this case.  In

What makes you think they are ``pseudonyms?''

< particular, a vote posted from a *root* *account* is, if anything, *more*
< *valid* than other votes.

I see nothing particularly awe-inspiring about someone who uses the
root account for things that don't require root privs.

< Kindly cease the pointless filibustering, Mr. Helms -- er, Webber.

filibustering?  does this look like the floor of the senate to you?

------- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)