Xref: utzoo news.groups:10073 rec.audio:13392 rec.video:6712 comp.sys.ibm.pc:30050 alt.hypertext:299 rec.ham-radio:11294 sci.electronics:6574 sci.research:995 comp.graphics:6114
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!oucsace!deadpup!paul
From: paul@deadpup.UUCP (paul)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.audio,rec.video,comp.sys.ibm.pc,alt.hypertext,rec.ham-radio,sci.electronics,sci.research,comp.graphics
Subject: Re: sci.commtech YES vote update!
Keywords: sci.commtech
Message-ID: <274@deadpup.UUCP>
Date: 12 Jun 89 05:07:13 GMT
References: <4229@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Organization: self employed in Athens, OH
Lines: 18

It seems to me that the idea of presenting neutral tallies of votes in
mid-stream has bitten the dust for certain. This is about as skewed as
such vote counting can get:

In article <4229@bgsuvax.UUCP>, klopfens@bgsuvax.UUCP (Bruce Klopfenstein) writes:
> 
> The yes votes as of 3 PM EDT 9 June 1989 for establishing sci.commtech
> are posted here.  If your name does not appear, you have not voted!
>
> [ a list of yes voters, and a midvote tally ]

If you are going to submit a list of Yea-sayers, why not also include the
list of those opposed so we can check to see if our messages got through
as well? Then again, silly me, you don't want "no" votes now, do you?

Paul J. Mech
oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU!deadpup!paul
uiucuxc!oucs!oucsace!deadpup!paul