VOTE: voting continues on comp.unix.wizards

[Eliot]

jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>the discussion of the newsgroup existed in comp.unix.wizards for several
>weeks prior to any discussion to recreate the newsgroup.  in fact, it was
>the single loudest topic of discussion in comp.unix.internals.

You have chosen to misunderstand events.  Discussion was for the
creation of comp.unix.esoterica.

Then he writes, well, a whole bunch of irrelevent things about what
happens when you take a poll of the advocates of an idea.  There was
no concensus in this group, where I believe it counts.

And then he writes:
>first, this is not a vote about comp.unix.esoterica.

Too bad!  That might have been Ok...

>vote about comp.unix.wizards, and has been stated over and over
>again, has =no= bearing on what should be done with any other .unix
>group.

Then you, sir, have *no* consideration for the name space, and
certainly should be ignored.  As to what Chip refused to do, it is
irrelevant.  There were other people willing to handle a vote, and
there was a possibility of a solution out of Erik Fair; all of these
facts (plus more, see my other posting) you chose not to consider.

>how can you break a damned ``suggestion''?  a quick lesson in english
>semantics, since you seem to be illiterate.

You can't break a suggestion, but don't claim to be following it when
you are not.  That is the point of this lesson (as I have stated at
least six times.  Who is illiterate?

Next he goes drivels on about my moderating responsibilities.  My
responsibilities are primarily to the users and system administrators
who don't read news.groups (with good reason).  I am the final
authority over what gets posted in that group, and will not have
N different votes for the same result go on at once.

>furthermore, he hasn't completely dismissed the call for votes
>as being illegitimate since he has told other people who want to
>hold votes that he won't until this "invalid" vote is complete.

My apologies for any confusion.  I will ask Laird to push ahead with
his vote.  I do dismiss John Haugh's call for votes as completely
invalid, and I will not only ignore actions based on his results, I
will counter them until such time as the issue is resolved.  Can move
on, now?
-- 
Eliot Lear
[lear at turbo.bio.net]