🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9418:Apr1121:48:4291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
|> In article <1991Apr11.022612.2522@rick.doc.ca> csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
|> > There has been a lot of activity "behind-the-scenes" among the reviewers
|> > in getting the newsgroup setup.
|> 
|> Of course. So all the people who voted for the group are now getting
|> a group that may only loosely correspond to what was proposed at first.
|> This isn't a flame, just an observation.

  It is an observation that has no basis in reality, and sounds like more of
your illogical flaming about this newsgroup.

  The "behind-the-scenes activity" Andrew is referring to is the ironing out
of the administrative details which will allow the submission and review
process to operate effectively, AS IT WAS PROPOSED.  The activity referred to
was conducted within the framework of WHAT WAS PROPOSED.

  What reason do you have to believe that just because the reviewers talked
about the newsgroup in E-mail, it will not provide the functionality that was
proposed in the charter upon which the Usenet voted?  Or are you saying that
the various people who have agreed to be reviewers for the group are not
allowed to correspond with each other in private E-mail, because the mere act
of doing so makes them somehow unable to meet the charter of the group?

-- 
Jonathan Kamens			              USnail:
MIT Project Athena				11 Ashford Terrace
jik@Athena.MIT.EDU				Allston, MA  02134
Office: 617-253-8085			      Home: 617-782-0710