Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!ficc!jeffd From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (Jeff Daiell) Newsgroups: news.groups Subject: Aquaria Message-ID: Date: 23 Feb 90 13:40:51 GMT Organization: Delley's Detachment, FICC [but opinions my own!] Lines: 34 In article <9002222341.AA23822@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, rsex@stb.UUCP writes: > >From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) > > > >In article <4291@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> BRIDGE@rcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (JOHN BRIDGE) writes: > >> The reason for that banning seems to be gone. > > > >In a manner of speaking. The reason sci.aquaria is blocked at many sites is > >that a number of people do not accept the validity of the vote creating it. > >If you were to hold a new vote and it were to pass, I think that you would > >discover that the blockage would go away as well. > > "I think" the blockage would go away ? Like, you have this theory ? > Like, we should have another vote on sci.aquaria based on the > hope that a semi-ordered synaptic discharge in Peter da Silvas > brain will indeed manifest itself as reality in 30,000 computer > sites around the world. > Like, if the group were in the right domain, there would be no controversy. Like, if the vote hadn't smelled, there might still have been no controversy afterward. So, as suggested before, why don't we, like, either take a head-to-head vote, like, or rmgroup con.aquaria and better propagate rec.aquaria, or rename, like, sci.aquaria sci.icthyology? That's something that would indeed be like-able. Jeff -- "Will you still love me tomorrow?" -- The Shirelles