🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov9.090122.10836@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Your opinion. The central argument I've had...none of you have touched. 
>I'll say it again: "what about the users of rec.music.synth? Don't you care
>about them?"

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. 

>I've been dancing with your notions of guidelines as hard as I can to
>get it through your bueraucratic heads that there is an inequity here.

What inequity? Everyone who wanted to could vote. At least, everyone
connected to USENET could. Those not connected to USENET don't really
need to be able to vote on USENET affairs.

>I thought I was dealing with rational folk who might have a chance of 
>perhaps considering that maybe there was an inequity in how it was handled.

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.

>Now I'm starting to learn that I appear to be dealing with people who's 
>only concern is their stubborn control over the newsgroup space and the
>holy Guidelines. 

Now we are starting to learn that we are dealing with a person who
doesn't care what precedent it sets, he doesn't care what the recorded
will of the net is, he wants the result he wants.

>Are you also going to admit that there is a class system
>in USENET?

There are two orthogonal classes in USENET. Those who care about the
newsgroup process and those that don't. Either class is open to anyone
who wants to join. To join the don't care group, all you have to do is
decide not to participate. To join the do care group, all you have to
do is decide to participate. It really is that simple. There are no
fees or certificates to fill out, nothing to sign. All it takes is a
decision to participate.

>>The process was completely open to participation from anyone who was affected.
>>Those who chose to participate were listened to. Those who chose not to were
>>not. It's really that simple.
>
>Blatantly false. I participated and I'm not being listened to. 

Are you claiming that your vote was not counted? I have read other
postings that claimed to have seen your vote in the list of voters, so
just how were you ignored?

If you are claiming that nobody is listening to you now, well, you were
listened to. There is a difference between listening to you and caving
in to your demands that things be run your way.

>If you really
>listened to what I was saying, then you'd deal with my central issue (see
>above). You haven't as of yet. 

Your central issue has been dealt with ad nauseum. There is no
inequity.  Those who chose not to participate chose not to participate.
Those who chose to ignore the CFV chose to ignore the CFV. They made
their own decision. And now we are expected to trash the opinion of
those who chose to participate because those who didn't are unhappy
with the results.