🚀 go-pugleaf

stanley@skyking.OCE.ORST.EDU (John Stanley) writes:
>Of course. That is why the CFV was posted to that group. It was posted
>there, people have said they have seen it, and archives have shown that
>it was. The users of r.m.s had just as much chance to vote as anyone
>else. 

Again the two critical points: 
1) the subject line was not clear
2) The first page of the CFV had no mention of r.m.s

This served to skew the voter population unfairly. Yes it was within
the compliance of the guidelines. No, it was not equitable. 

>I thought we were dealing with a rational person who could accept it
>when he was shown that there was no inequity. Or who would prove this
>inequity instead of just continuing to shout that there is one.

I just did. Let's stick to the topic...we've been flaming enough.
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

   The foolish reject what they see, not what they think;
	     The wise reject what they think, not what they see...