Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!jeffd
From: jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Various topics
Summary: sci
Message-ID: <Z-Z13LAxds8@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 25 Feb 90 03:50:36 GMT
References: <_DW17VCxds8@ficc.uu.net> <59198@ccicpg.UUCP> <59391@ccicpg.UUCP>
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corporation
Lines: 34

In article <59391@ccicpg.UUCP>, dave@ccicpg.UUCP ( Dave Hill) writes:
 
> Perhaps someone can explain just what the problem is, I mean
> besides "Richard Sexton did it so we don't like it."
> 
> That is the basic argument, no?  I mean I don't see anyone
> screaming that rec.aquaria is illegitimate because it was
> created without discussion or vote?
> 
> Richard wanted .aquaria in sci and Peter wanted it in rec.
> You don't think .aquaria belongs in the sci hierarchy,
> therefore Richard's vote is 'tainted' and Peter's
> POLL is legitimate?
> 
> Marvelous.
> 
> You folks haven't been discussing the merits of rec vs. sci.
> 
> You've simply been campaining against the SCI group.
> 
> And the only reason is because Richard Sexton championed
> the group.
> 

Hmm.  Two inaccuracies here: one, I had no problem with Richard
before this started; two, there were some pretty heavy charges
about the voting itself, and my pointing to them has nothing to
do with the group being inappropriately placed.

And if Peter's procedure was equally improper, a head-to-head
vote can clear *all* of our points of contention away.

Jeff

-- 

               "Will you still love me tomorrow?"

                                -- The Shirelles