Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!nmbcu
From: NMBCU@CUNYVM
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Various topics
Message-ID: <90060.094614NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: 1 Mar 90 14:46:14 GMT
References: <30@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Lines: 65

In article <30@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>, rissa@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us (Patricia O
Tuama) says:
>
>In article <90056.104623NMBCU@CUNYVM.BITNET> NMBCU@CUNYVM writes:
>[long, strange article mostly deleted]
>
>My goodness gracious, Nelson, where did all that come from?  The
>reason I think you're biased is because you were rather vocal dur-
>ing the aquaria discussion last fall.

 If I choose to be vocal about something on the net, I have that
 right. As does anyone else. And using your own reasoning, since
 Richard was very vocal with his views last fall he was also very
 biased.

>                                       Anyone who posted more than
>a couple of articles on this discussion is probably biased in one
>direction or another ...

 You are correct here and yet also incorrect. While it is rather
 difficult to post many articles stating ones own viewpoint and yet be
 totally unbiased, it is also wrong to think that someone who takes the
 time to get involved in a discussion is biased. People can post to a
 particular discussion and yet take neither side. And yes Trish, during
 last fall's aquaria discussion period, neither Richard or myself were
 non-biased mediator's. But they do exist. Honest they do. :) And I don't
 think (nor did I ever), that there was anything wrong with Rich taking the
 vote (see below).

>              ...    and is therefore, an unsuitable candidate for
>vote-taker.

 As I said originally, if someone is calling for an initial
 discussion for a particular group, then yes, of course they are
 biased. But there is nothing wrong with that person taking the
 eventual vote on said group. I never had any complaints with
 Richard taking the vote because he was Richard nor because he was
 biased. I only had complaints with his distribution reasoning, and
 the name that he had choosen. Thats the operative sentence here.
 Things would have gone a lot smother if he had not gone against
 the majorities wishes. I told him via private e-mail that another
 sci.aqu name might go down a little smother if he was still going
 to ignore the majorities wishes and not use the rec.aqua name.
 But he choose ignore rather than listen to reasoning. That made
 everyone angry. Then they became angrier still when he began to
 solicite votes from readers of other groups having nothing to
 do with aquariums. (But then I told you all this via private e-mail
 last fall).

>How on earth did you take this simple sentence and manage to come
>up with all that weird stuff you wrote accusing me of all sorts of
>bizarre things?

 From my past e-mailings with you and seeing how you correspond with
 others on the net. You can be nasty when you wanna be, Trish. :)


P.S. - Your followup group name, won't work with me. News.Groups.Paranioa
       indeed...    knock knock knock

       WHOSE THERE!!!   WHOSE THERE!!!! STAY AWAY FROM ME!!!! STAY AWAY!!!

       :)                :)              :)

                                                           Nelson Broat