Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk. Summary: There's nothing left to decide Message-ID: <1990Feb3.113416.9754@twwells.com> Date: 3 Feb 90 11:34:16 GMT References: <264@fornax.UUCP> <7423@tank.uchicago.edu> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 61 In article <7423@tank.uchicago.edu> garm@tank.uchicago.edu (Robert Garmong) writes: : 1) There has been little discussion on a charter for either group, : and that should precede any call for votes. We need to know what : we're getting into before we start counting votes. What you are looking for is neither necessary or desirable; unmoderated newsgroups don't generally have such a thing and the only "official" statement that anyone ever reads about them is the single line in the checkgroups posting that goes out periodically. Moderated groups often do have a charter but that charter is up to the moderator. What might be desirable is a short essay on what Objectivism is. This could then be posted monthly. It can also be written any time convenient. And should be the same regardless of whether the group is talk or sci. : 3) The poll which Bill Wells recently posted was skewed, as at least : three, and possibly more, people at Bellabs were not able to vote. Awwwwww. Ain't that too bad. That's not the way things work. The poll started. And ended. That some people had system problems is not relevant. No doubt there were people on the talk side who were unable to respond, as well. Let's put it this way: if I open the poll for more responses, I'll immediately count in the several new responses I got this evening. All for talk. : 4) As Miron notes, the vote for sci.* should precede that for talk.*, : as sci.* is the more controversial, and therefore the more likely : to get voted down. Completely irrelevant. If you guys want to run a sci vote, feel free. I am no longer interested in the possibility of sci.philosophy.objectivism; the net is not in favor of it and so I shall continue with things and ignore any more advocacy of sci. : What is the procedure for the call for votes? When can one : >post it? : : Anyone have any answers on this? Mr. Stubblefield seems to know the rules, If he does, he learned them very recently. But I know them; I've already run a successful newsgroup vote. A vote could have been taken as early as the 27th had a consensus been reached. But it may be taken up to the 11th of February. I will be waiting for a few days to see if anything interesting happens. If nothing does, I'll call for votes. Arguments about sci no longer count as interesting. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com "We never make assertions, Miss Taggart. That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell -- we *show*. We do not claim -- we *prove*." -- Hugh Akston in _Atlas Shrugged_