Voting requirements for valid newgroups

[Dave Ratcliffe]

In article <18614 at rpp386.cactus.org>, jfh at rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
> if eliot lets someone start another "blessed" vote i would
> step aside as i have no doubt in my mind that a "blessed"
> vote would pass by a far larger margin than any "cursed"
> vote.  and of course the goal in the end is really just to
> recreate the damned group ...

If you're so damned sure you'll get c.u.w. back again regardless of HOW the
voting is done, then why don't you stop this idiotic 'back-door' vote and do 
it the same way everyone else has. FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES! Sure you sent Elliot
a CFV. With a notice that voting started in the beginning of Oct. Good timing. 
Why didn't you send it when YOU started this debacle?

Above, you said something important:

> and of course the goal in the end is really just to
> recreate the damned group ...

Then WHY do you insist on stirring things up by deliberately ignoring the very
same guidelines that everyone else finds easy to follow? Even if your
supposed 'valid vote' shows c.u.w. passes, it will be meaningless since
that group has long since been aliased elsewhere. Besides that, consider
this: Voting AGAINST your proposal is a tacit admission by the voter
that you are running a valid vote, something I have no doubt you will
use to trumpet your claim of validity when it suites you. 

If you have such great faith in the massive support for c.u.w. you claim
exists, then put it to a LEGITIMATE vote and stop playing semantic games
regarding the guidlines. 

         *>> Dave <<*

[------------------------------------------------------ Dave Ratcliffe -----]
: uunet!rutgers!psuvax1!eds1!wa3wbu!compnect!dave   | The Data Factory BBS  :
: uunet!wa3wbu!compnect!dave                        |    (717)657-4997      :
: dave at compnect.uucp or compnect!dave at uunet.UU.NET  |    (717)657-4992      :
[------------------------------------------------------ Harrisburg  Pa. ----]