Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5405 comp.unix.bsd:16182 comp.sys.novell:67911 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!satisfied.elf.com!news2.near.net!public.x.org!kaleb From: kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.sys.novell Subject: Re: Put the Cannons Away: Vote YES on newsgroup reformation. Date: 15 Feb 95 21:09:08 GMT Organization: X Consortium Inc. Lines: 47 Message-ID: <kaleb.792882548@exalt> References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <3hdu9u$rhm@park.uvsc.edu> <3hegvm$plp@agate.berkeley.edu> <hm.792410152@hcswork.hcs.de> <3hhlk1$fc9@agate.berkeley.edu> <3hjmsn$p7b@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792586335@fedora.x.org> <3ho9kj$p9@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792707623@exalt> <3hs0f1$crd@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792846319@fedora.x.org> <3htgri$jbc@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: exalt.x.org X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >What I *am* taking you to task for is electioneering. Jesus said >to vote "no" for largely vacuous reasons, although there was a >kernel of truth in one or two of them. You responded with an >attack on the less credible parts of his post and a call to vote >"yes". Left at that, what you had done was knock down a strawman >that Jesus had (presumably unintentionally) set up for you. I did not responded to Jesus Monroy's post; several others did, and in turn I responded to those. If you think that I have responded to Jesus then your are mistaken and you have me confused with someone else. >Seeing that a logical fallacy was being perpetrated, I had no >choice but to engage in electioneering to combat yours, which was >largely based on the false cause argument that because Jesus was >wrong on some points, that you are right on all points. You are >not. I have not made any such claim. That would take more hubris than I've got to ever claim to be "right on all points." Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. >Once the restatement of positions had taken place, I was happy to >let it drop, but it was *YOU* who continued to put forth argument >favoring a particular outcome, rather than letting it simply be >voted upon. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You think that other people can put forth arguments favoring a particular outcome, but that I can't or shouldn't. Is that a correct assessment? Putting forth arguments in favor of a particular outcome sounds more like campaigning than electioneering to me. Are you saying that you think I'm not even allowed to campaign? >Fine. Quit electioneering and start counting votes. Are you that out of touch with the Usenet RFD/CFV process? I don't count the votes. The votes are counted by an independent third party. This was fully explained in the RFD and CFV. When you're less confused then maybe we can talk again. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY