🚀 go-pugleaf

rca@Ingres.COM (Bob Arnold) writes:

>Dave Hayes is asserting that even following the guidelines to the letter
>isn't good enough.  He is also says that the CFVs/CFDs did not
>include r.m.synth in the subject line, and I have not seen anybody
>disagree with him (have I missed this?).  So, perhaps Dave is right on
>this assertion.

The CFV contained 6 votes, if all those had been put into the subject line
the you wouldn't have had a subject line - just a bloody mess.

>This mess would not have happened if Rich (remember, he did an honest
>and careful job) had mentioned r.m.synth in the CFV/CFD subject line.  

All those from the other 5 groups would have cried foul.

>Dave is also asserting that r.m.synth readers are being unfairly
>victimized by the vote procedures.

>Perhaps this is true, and perhaps not.  Dave thinks it's true though,
>and is assembling evidence to support this assertion.  Good - this
>is healthy.

The subject line was just as relevant to the readers of rec.music.synth
as to the readers of the alt groups. They figured out what to do, and
I have no reason to believe that they are any smarter than the average
rec.music.synth reader. Come on, 271 people voted on this proposal -
Dave Hayes claims he has 14 unsatified rec.music.synth readers.
Doesn't those figures tell you something.
-- 
Jesper Lauridsen        |  I survived the rec.arts.sf-lovers split
rorschak@daimi.aau.dk   |