From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Subject: Re: *BAD* music group reorg will not be honored 
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 23:20:47 GMT

In <1992Nov5.203852.29784@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>There now appears to be a consensus of evidence that implies that the
>discussions WEREN'T posted to rec.music.synth.

Sounds more to me like a few people who didn't bother to pay attention
to things that said "CFV" in them, not realizing that any call for votes
posted to their newsgroup was relevant to the newsgroup.  So they don't
understand the proper working of USENET.  This is not the problem of
those who do understand the guidelines.

>>>2) The group name makes absolutely NO SENSE for the intended audience.
>>I disagree.  It makes perfect sense.  This newsgroup is primarily
>>frequented by people who create music using synthesizers.  
>	-people who design them,
>	-people who write software for them.
>	-music press
>	-sysops

So none of these other people are concerned with making music?

Somehow that doesn't seem very sensible to me.  I thought the
whole point was that all the people involved in designing hard
and software for them were directing their efforts at making
music, whether the music was made by them personally or not.

>That is an assumption which you cannot verify. The usenet guidelines are
>anything but perfect, and following them doesn't mean that you won't piss
>a bunch of people off. 

So change the damn guidelines already and quit crying over spilt milk.

>>I personally think you're abusing your position as a news administrator to
>>go against a net decision you don't oppose.  
>On the contrary. I'm using my position to try and reach a net.consensus on
>an unfair action sanctioned by the Guidelines. There is possible evidence
>of NO votes which weren't counted, and discussions which WEREN'T posted
>to rec.music.synth (which are reasons that are sanctioned by the guidelines). 

As the nay sayer, I believe the burden of proof is on you.  What possible
evidence do you have of either of these?  People have posted saying they
DID see the CFVs on rec.music.synth.  The vote-taker has posted explaining
the only possible way he could conceive of votes (YES *or* NO) not being
counted, and that anyone whose vote was so discounted would have gotten a
message indicating that it wasn't counted and they should try again (which
goes far beyond the requirements of the guidelines).  It's your word against
theirs until you can demonstrate some kind of concrete basis for your
allegations.

>>you're only hurting your own users, and your childish tantrum won't
>>accomplish much other than get a whole lot of people annoyed with you.
>Gee...tell that to the number of people who have sent me e-mail in support.
>I haven't had one flame by email yet.

If these people really support you, they should post as well.  Any claims
on your part of "private email support" sound like BS to me, because they
are just as unsubstantiated as your other claims.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        We've distilled the cheeky wide-boy essense of these characters