Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!uunet!nuchat!splut!jay From: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: Complimentary but not overlapping Message-ID: Date: 24 Dec 89 13:45:05 GMT References: <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> Reply-To: jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX Lines: 32 In article <10728@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) writes: >My question doesn't have anything to do with Peter's group per se. >I just want to know now that the newgroup creation guidelines have >been amended to include the da Silva Process, whether or not anyone >else who wishes to follow the same procedure is required to hold a >separate discussion period or whether he/she can simply skip that >step like Peter did. >Now if you have an answer to my question, Jay, I'd like to hear it. >But if you and your fellow bizarrites are going to continue to wander >off on unrelated tangents about the .aquaria groups then please don't >bother. You deleted my answer. rec.aquaria - and this is not irrelevant, since it's the group about the creation process of which you are complaining - had a discussion period. *It* *lasted* *TWO* *months*. There was no change, explicit or implicit, to the guidelines involved. Any other group in a similar situation - heavily overdiscussed, and clearly a consensus - is ready to be voted on. That is the intent of the guidelines. That is the result the guidelines envision. Now, will you stop being deliberately obtuse? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...