Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: late votes for *.AQUARIA
Message-ID: <10693@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 21 Dec 89 09:49:28 GMT
References: <7332@ficc.uu.net> <12488@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 25

In article <12488@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker,00440,cb,1D211,6148604019) writes:
>In article <7332@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>It has established, as
>>Richard's didn't, a group name that is widely accepted and appropriate.
>How can you claim that ?  You got only 135 names of people who liked
>rec.aquaria, which Richard produced 400 (if memory serves) who liked
>sci.aquaria.  Sounds like his name is much more widely accepted.

I agree -- Peter's vote doesn't "prove" anything.  Heavens, he didn't
even get close to to ~320 who voted against s.a much less the 460 or
so netters who voted for it.

I do have one question, however:  now that Peter's new vote-taking 
scheme has been declared legitimate, does this mean anyone can call
for a similar vote to duplicate any other duly-elected newsgroup?

In particular I was wondering about talk.skeptic, but certainly this
could be applied to virtually any other newsgroup.  And am I correct
in thinking that this kind of vote is also not subject to the 14 day
discussion period just as Peter's vote was not?


And what's going to happen at those sites that aliased s.a to rec.
pets.fish?  Rec.aquaria -and- rec.pets.fish?  That should be inter-
esting, huh.