🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov10.002728.5233@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>It doesn't work perfectly. It's unworkable if only for your stubborn
>adherence. 

It's worked fine, unchanged, for the past two years, for a few hundred group
creations and a few tens of reorgs. YOU are the one demanding a change, and
tossing out a validly conducted vote. The burden of proof is on YOU. So far,
you have failed to meet it.

>There you have it. They *have* demonstrated that they care, but not 
>according to your notion or timetable. That, I guess, makes them wrong, huh?

They care no more than someone who didn't vote on or before 3 November for
their choice of President. They have no more right to complain about the
results.

>Demonstrably and admittedly false. I cite this example as one. The voter
>population was skewed. 

I have admitted no such thing, and would appreciate it greatly if you'd stop
implying that. The process is fair, and was fairly, openly, and properly
conducted.

>Only according to your prescribed rules. Most people don't have time to
>remain glued to news.groups. 

That is not necessary. All that is required is to participate in discussions
related to the group of interest, and all THAT requires is not ignoring RFDs
and CFVs when they appear.

>>I've dealt with your central issue; you've simply ignored it.
>But not as a representative of the people. 

Who, exactly, appointed you as the representative of the people? I contend
that I am representing the users of the net more than you are, for I represent
those who cared enough to express an opinion, and not just the few disaffected
readers of one newsgroup.
-- 
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.
     We survived Jimmy Carter; we'll (probably) survive Bill Clinton.