Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!bionet!ames!attctc!rissa
From: rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: late votes for *.AQUARIA
Message-ID: <10729@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 24 Dec 89 06:33:46 GMT
Organization: Lone Star Cafe
Lines: 23

In article <7407@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> So you're agreeing that if someone wishes to create a group by the
>> new da Silva process that a discussion period is not necessary.
>No, maam. That ain't what I said. Ah'm jest a simple country boy down
>heyah in thuh great state o' Texas, but even Ah kin tell the differnce
>between whut I said an' what you said.

So you're saying that if someone wishes to create a group by the 
new da Silva process that a discussion period -is- necessary?

I mean, either a discussion period is required or it's not, Peter.
This is real simple.  If you want to qualify your answer by saying
it's not necessary if you're taking a vote within one week or one
month or six months or a year of the first group being created, go
right ahead.  I just want to know whether it's required or not un-
der the new da Silva guidelines.

>> Just out of curiosity, Peter dear, what other existing guidelines
>> concerning the creation of new groups do you also feel may be bro-
>> ken in service to common sense?
>Any of 'em. Just be sure that common sense is what you're operating on,

Why?  You didn't.