Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: late votes for *.AQUARIA Message-ID: <7395@ficc.uu.net> Date: 21 Dec 89 22:22:57 GMT References: <7332@ficc.uu.net> <12488@cbnews.ATT.COM> <10693@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 20 In article <10693@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: > 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? When in doubt, apply common sense. There had been considerable discussion on the subject for the immediately preceding 6 weeks. I felt that extending that discussion period to 2 months was a little redundant. Certainly that was the aspect of my call for votes that got the *fewest* flames. Now holding a second vote for talk.skeptic immediately after sci.skeptic would probably have been reasonable. -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . 'U` Also or . "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com