Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk. Message-ID: <09I13LGxds8@ficc.uu.net> Date: 3 Feb 90 11:51:08 GMT References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3320@iitmax.IIT.EDU> Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation Lines: 36 In article <3320@iitmax.IIT.EDU>, demodsb@iitmax.IIT.EDU (David Bombardier) writes: > In article jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) writes: > >In article <264@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes: > > > >> The sci vote should be first since it is > >> harder. > > > > > >But talk was proposed first. > > Actually, sci.philosophy.objectivism was proposed first. Someone on > sci.philosophy.tech suggested it to Bob Stubblefield. It wasn't until after > discussion on sci.philosophy.objectivism began (although there wasn't a formal > call for discussion) that talk.philosophy.objectivism was proposed. > David, where was the discussion of spo placed? If I recall, Bill was the first to propose a *po group in the appropriate locations for such proposals. Still, this is a quibble. Why don't we hold *one* vote: (1) I prefer sci.philosophy.objectivism ___ (2) I prefer talk.philosophy.objectivism ___ (3) No Objectivism group; I hate Reason, Purpose, and Self-Esteem ___ If either (1) or (2) get at least 100 votes, and more than twice the number of (3), a group will be created ... and which one gets created will depend on which, of (1) and (2), gets more votes. Jeff Daiell -- "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of course, that's no reason for getting married." -- C. E. "Billie" Daiell