Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!amdcad!sun!rfm@urth
From: rfm@urth (Rich McAllister)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: Final Vote Tally/Summary
Message-ID: <98265@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 10 Apr 89 19:55:02 GMT
References: <77800017@sts> <Apr.9.13.26.05.1989.1355@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: rfm@urth (Rich McAllister)
Organization: sun
Lines: 9
In-reply-to: msmith@topaz.rutgers.edu (Mark Robert Smith)

In article <Apr.9.13.26.05.1989.1355@topaz.rutgers.edu>, msmith@topaz (Mark Robert Smith) writes:
>I still hold that this vote was invalid, because there was no reliable
>path to the vote-taker.  

This is irrelevant, unless you can show some reason to believe anti-zoo
voters had more trouble than pro-zoo voters.  There were lots of votes that
DID get through, and the proportions seem convincing.

Rich