Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!phoenix
From: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: The Topic that wouldn't go away (re: sci vs. talk)
Keywords: enough already
Message-ID: <13572@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 4 Feb 90 23:34:06 GMT
References: <3284@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <3285@iitmax.IIT.EDU> <9442@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> <7346@tank.uchicago.edu> <1990Feb1.005817.1786@everexn.uucp> <38268@apple.Apple.COM> <1426@awdprime.UUCP>
Sender: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
Reply-To: greg@phoenix (greg Nowak)
Organization: Cabal of Fools; Phoenix Gang
Lines: 19
In-reply-to: mjones@fenway.uucp (Mike Jones)

In article <1426@awdprime.UUCP>, mjones@fenway (Mike Jones) writes:
>Since I seem to recall that the original proposal was for a talk. group and
>the only real opposition I have seen was of the "no, it should be sci.!"
>type, isn't is appropriate to have a call for votes for t.p.o? There has
>certainly been enough discussion about s.p.o that one of its proponents
>could, if he wishes, call for votes on that, too, but that's an entirely
>independent issue. 

_exactly_. That was my point in my earlier article. The "decision"
between TPO and SPO is a bogus issue. The proposer of TPO is free to
declare the vote begun at any time; the same goes for SPO. They need
not take notice of each other or accomodate each other in any way.
Given the amount of controversy on this point, the only solution is to
follow what procedures we hhave, and let the conflict be resolved in
the minds of the several voters.


rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg   Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ 
    "Take 2*3*5*7*11*13.  It's divisible by 59." --Matt Crawford