Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!milton!gwangung
From: gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk.
Message-ID: <1748@milton.acs.washington.edu>
Date: 5 Feb 90 22:03:37 GMT
References: <TORKEL.90Feb1123354@echnaton.sics.se> <13468@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <9002012209.AA18147@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu> <CMM.0.88.634245656.bfu@aurboda.uio.no>
Reply-To: gwangung@milton.acs.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 18

In article <CMM.0.88.634245656.bfu@aurboda.uio.no> Thomas Gramstad <bfu@ifi.uio.no> writes:
>>From: peterson@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu (Eric J Peterson)
>>Date: 1 Feb 90 22:19:05 GMT
>
>>Instead of having two separate Yes/No votes going on, why not just
>>have one Sci/Talk vote?  You vote one time, either for sci.phil.obj or
>>talk.phil.obj, thereby eliminating biases in the voting caused by
>>voting yes twice or no twice in an independent vote.

	Pardon me for asking, but what's the problem with running a Guttman-
style scale and run the voting like this:
	No on either objectivist group
	Yes on talk.*
	Yes on sci.*
and folks are free to vote once or twice?

Judging by the debate on here, things seem to follow a Guttman scale which
would be easy enough to use....