Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ibmchs!auschs!cello!d75!awdprime!fenway!mjones From: mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk. Message-ID: <1425@awdprime.UUCP> Date: 2 Feb 90 17:54:59 GMT References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <257@fornax.UUCP> Sender: news@awdprime.UUCP Reply-To: ibmps2.uucp!aix!mjones (Mike Jones) Organization: IBM DSD, Kingston Lines: 23 In article torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes: >In article <257@fornax.UUCP> miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > > >It is possible to have the votes simultaneously if a person can vote > >on one proposal independently from the other. So a person can vote > >Yes to both, or No to both, or a combination thereof. > > Yes, I didn't think of this. Still, I think we shouldn't have >simultaneous votes since some ardent "sci" enthusiasts might simply >refuse to compromise their convictions by also voting for "talk". >Those of us who want an objectivism group first and foremost would >prefer not to put the "sci" diehards in this difficult position. Hmm. Since the Objectivist types (especially the "sci diehards") are going on at length about the superiority of reason and rational responce, one would have to assume that this position shouldn't be difficult at all unless one were determined in the face of all opposition to have a sci. group, no? Mike Jones | Oh, these computers. They're so naughty. AIX Kernel Development | I could just *pinch* them. Kingston, NY | - Marvin Martian .!uunet!ibmps2!aix!mjones