🚀 go-pugleaf

 > In article <C16rGn.DJG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
 > jgraham@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (the End) writes: > What
 > anal retentive #$%#@^%^ decided to split the
 > misc.forsale.computers > group ? 
 
 > Over 300 "anal retentive #$%#@^%^" (as you put it) voted to
 > split misc.forsale.computers compared to less than 150
 > voting no.
 
 > The Request For Discussion (RFD), Call For Votes (CFV) and
 > results were posted to misc.forsale.computers. The newgroup
 > messages were sent out October 19th and the rmgroup message
 > was sent out on the 18th of this month. All according to the
 > guidelines.
 
 > Obviously you couldn't to be bothered to join into the
 > discussion or to vote. BTW, I didn't vote because I didn't
 > care one way or the other. And before you go off in another
 > direction, there are several thousand people who read
 > misc.forsale.computers they also had the chance to discuss
 > and vote on the split.
 
 > If you want to be heard - speakup. your vote to count - use
 > If you want it or lose it.
 
No, it was NOT posted as you describe.  The very first notice readers
got in this neck of the message woods was a series of lengthy posts
telling us that the vote was completed and the split would be taking
place - no arguements accepted.   I could prove this at the time (too
late now) as I had archived the entire group during the time in
question and reading THAT mess caused me to scan back through for the
missing posts.  I was VERY vocal about pointing this out - possibly
past the point of good etiquette, possibly not when you consider what
caused it in the first place.  I received a good many e-mailings from
other individuals who confirmed that these required posts were never
issued or never arrived at a good many sites.  
 
The point is moot.  The infamous (some say idiotic) "split" has been
made and has already proven to be a major problem for users.  The
original group still carries the majority of the newer posts where
administrators haven't cut it to force users to the splinters, and it's
my hope that many or most will continue to carry it past the so called
"official" shut off date.  The whole mess will not simply go away
because one person keeps saying it was "legal".  
 
 > Obviously you couldn't to be bothered to join into the
 > discussion or to vote. BTW, I didn't vote because I didn't
 > care one way or the other. And before you go off in another
 > direction, there are several thousand people who read
 > misc.forsale.computers they also had the chance to discuss
 > and vote on the split.
 
 > If you want to be heard - speakup. your vote to count - use
 > If you want it or lose it.
 
That bears repeating.  Doesn't it strike you a bit odd that those
several thousand people HAD the chance to vote on it (they did?) but
never said a word UNTIL it was too late?  Too bad, indeed...