Xref: utzoo news.groups:18600 comp.sys.mac:50342 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!milano!werner From: werner@milano.sw.mcc.com (Werner Uhrig) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Do not reorganize comp.sys.mac.* Keywords: multiple creation renaming crossposting Message-ID: <40807@milano.sw.mcc.com> Date: 10 Mar 90 20:54:58 GMT References: <1990Mar7.195114.1077@diku.dk> <25F6D310.5483@tct.uucp> <1381@lzsc.ATT.COM> Reply-To: werner@milano.sw.mcc.com.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) Organization: MCC, Austin, Texas Lines: 50 hcj@lzsc.ATT.COM (HC Johnson) wrote: > Are we to believe that 180 responses to chuq is really a quorum. 175 to 5 seems to me a pretty good measuring stick of how opinions tend to be distributed on the matter. > Perhaps chuq would be more advised to take a weeks traffic and > tell us (title lines only) how he would have distributed them differently, > and then each of us can judge whether we would have not wanted to read > the subsection these fell into. nobody would bother to read and evaluate such an article discussing 500+ Subject headers ... there is no indication that there is a problem with agreeing on 5 or so topic-areas into which the current traffic can be split. Your article has more the sound of a party- pooper than of an objection that is well-founded. (sorry, but that's the way you came across when I read your article). why don't you do the work and "proof" that there is no such distri- bution to be found? and see if anyone cares to read your article of certainly 500+ lines ? > This looks to me a way to fracture comp.sys.mac into littler peices with > only one beneficiary, chuq. don't make nebulous personal attacks if you expect anyone to take you serious. > Should chuq wish to take this as a vote, consider is NO, > on any and all changes. even if he wanted to, he cannot (and should not) take posted articles as votes. And currently there is no vote-counting going on of the kind that would fit YOUR vote, anyway ... Even though I have my disagreements with "details" in Chuq's proposal, I am responding to this article in defense of Chuq, because I believe that when a netter is attacked personally in this fashion, he should not have to respond himself, but "the public" should speak up and discourage "distractions" of the kind Howard posted.... Cheers, ---Werner -- --------------------------> please send REPLIES to <------------------------ INTERNET: werner@cs.utexas.edu or: werner@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (Internet # 128.83.144.1) UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!werner