Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk.
Summary: He's right.
Keywords: voting
Message-ID: <OZJ13P5xds8@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 5 Feb 90 11:51:16 GMT
References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <270@fornax.UUCP>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Lines: 23

In article <270@fornax.UUCP>, miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman ) writes:
>I think it is best to have two independent
> questions:
> 
> (1) YES/NO    for an Objectivism group
> (2) SCI/TALK  hierarchy, if the group is created
> 
> The first qustion will decide the creation by the guidelines.  The
> second will decide the hierarchy by majority.
> 
> 	Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>

Miron is indeed correct.  What's embarrassing (sp.?) is that this
two-step method is one I've been advocating in just such cases as
this.  

A thumbs-up for Miron!


Jeff Daiell



-- 
            "She sounded like a very nice woman, but, of 
            course, that's no reason for getting married."

                            --  C. E. "Billie" Daiell