Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!novavax!twwells!bill From: bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Re: How to decide -- sci or talk. Keywords: voting Message-ID: <1990Feb7.213528.8905@twwells.com> Date: 7 Feb 90 21:35:28 GMT References: <7363@tank.uchicago.edu> <13437@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <270@fornax.UUCP> Organization: None, Ft. Lauderdale, FL Lines: 36 : >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. The second question has already been answered. The poll results were 20 for sci, 35 for talk. If you want to count responses received after the poll closed, make those 21 and 38. Damn near 2/3 (64%) of the respondents want talk. Not only that, but since the numbers guarantee that it will be non-Objectivists who decide the fate of the group and all but a few of the pro-sci responses were Objectivists, based solely on the numbers it is an easy conclusion to draw that the attempt to create a sci group would fail. And one can add to that that there are a number (over 10% of my poll responses) of people who said they would vote *against* a sci group. (No, I don't recall any "I'll vote against talk" responses.) There isn't any question at all which is the generally preferred hierarchy. The only reason that this discussion has gone on so long is that certain people don't know when it is time to shut up. --- 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_