🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec22.194946.54964@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>Besides the rec.music.synth vote (which I missed, but would have
>abstained from all questions other than the rms question had I voted),
>the only similar case I can recall is the rec.arts.drwho vote.
>This, too, was bundled with some other hierarchy like rec.sf-lovers,
>to which the proposer believed r.a.d "logically" belonged.  I
>voted "no" on the question, abstained on the irrelevant ones,
>and the "logical" reorganization was defeated.  

...because concerned citizens went out and drummed up opposition to the
proposal. Ferchrissake, man! There was more flamage about that reorg than
about anything else in a long, long time.

In this case, concerned citizens knew that something was going on and did
nothing. This is the first case where such a thing has happened. I don't know
why there wasn't more of a hue and cry raised, but I think it's reasonable to
believe that the current case is the exception. After all, Scott Forbes got it
right when he said that anything of note is accomplished on the net by
flaming...

>I think an extra ballot or two every couple of years is
>well worth the price of avoiding the kind of situation
>which we encountered with rms.

I think taking Dave Hayes out back and shooting him is well worth the price of
avoiding the kind of situation we encountered with rms.

Sorry, but your statement is no more valid.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
 "Brought to you by the letters O, S, and by the number 2." -- Mike Levis