Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ncar!woods
From: woods@ncar.ucar.edu (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: Suggestions for a new backbone (was: Re: comp.sys.next, voting, etc.)
Message-ID: <895@ncar.ucar.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 88 20:19:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: ncar.895
References: <5178@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <8187@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods)
Organization: Scientific Computing Division/NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 20

In article <8187@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US> jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (The Beach Bum) writes:
>What we need is a smaller backbone with members selected by the community.
>It was claimed, true or false I won't say, that Rick Adams and Greg Woods
>were directly responsible for comp.society.women being held hostage.

  Whether it is true or not, you have slandered my name in public by making
such a charge, and I demand to see your evidence. I claim you're full of it.
All I did was post my opinions, just as you and everyone else did. Being
on the "backbone" (in the old sense) or "the committee" (in the new sense)
does not, as far as I know, mean that you no longer get to have any personal
opinions. One could just as easily claim that Gene Spafford, who favored the
group, rammed it down everybody's throats. And it would be equally ridiculous
to do so. Even on the backbone we more-or-less went by majority rule. As
a particular example, comp.society.women DID get created. The reason it took
so long was because it was such a controversial issue, not because I or
Rick opposed it in particular. There were *many* people on *both* sides of the 
issue who felt strongly about it. It was necessary to discover who was in
the majority first.

--Greg