From: pmmuggli@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Pauline M Muggli)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:40:45 GMT

  alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
>  chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:
>>  alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
   
   [ stuff deleted ]

>> Your attempts at foiling a fresh clean vote and
>> maintaing the status quo is not going to ensure the 42% propagation
>> will stay. 
 
>I am not foiling a fresh clean vote. What do you think the current 
>straw poll is for ? One has to make sure that substantial number of users
>want a revote before carrying out a revote for a group which
>already exists and is functioning qu reasonably (excluding the flames
>from you and your cronies).

but the original vote was tainted in *most* people's minds
whether you admit it or not.  therefore, a revote seems to be
the best way to solve this.  your strawpoll means nothing at
this point.  i did not vote in the original cfv.  i almost voted
against, and the way you are carrying on, makes me wish i had.

you made a few mistakes (imho) including posting the cfv to
alt.native.  instead of agreeing that there is/was enough things
that were unorthodox about the whole vote and agreeing to a
second vote and keeping your mouth shut, you are turning people
against the idea because of your ego.  if i were a malicious
person, i would vote against the group this time just to spite
*you* mr. vijayvargia, not anyone else, you personally.

 [ more deleted ]
 
>Also a large number of flames (not from me, but you and your cronies) may 
>also have turned off another group of people (including myself). 
>Now if only you and your cronies will stop it ...

i found this sentence to be particularly humorous.  i have not
been "turned off" by any of the postings except the ones where
you think you have more rights with regards to the
group/re-vote than anyone else on the net.  such as "veto",
"strawpoll", etc.

 [ more deleted ]
 
>Actually I am trying to have the group survive a little longer by arguing
>for more time. This group will not survive a fresh vote in present
>circumstances.  And I am not to be blamed for it. If you are seriously 
>interested in having this group pass again, you would stop negative 
>campaigning against me and the group.  This will make me devote energy 
>constructively for the group.  Right now a significant amount of my time and 
>energy has been going in just to deal with all this zazz, which you and your 
>cronies have created all over the USENET :-).

i can't believe you are going to blame others if the vote
doesn't pass this time.  i think you have created more ill will
toward the group than everyone else put together!  as a matter
of fact, most of the posts at this time are not about the group,
but about what occured during the original vote, various
statistics, and what your latest escapades are.
 
 [ sentence deleted ]
>Somehow I find it hard to believe you are seriously interested in 
>having this group on the Usenet. You voted against the group last time, 
>before any controversy even began. Your reason was that the group was
>not needed and that I was creating it for my personal reasons.
[ rest deleted ]

personally, i see the need for the s.c.i group to subdivided
because of the number of postings.  but, i don't feel i should
vote this time, as i didn't last time, and i am afraid if i did,
it would be against you rather than the group, even though in
reality it would be a vote against the group's continuation.

pauline