From: alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia)
Subject: Re: 2nd RFD: SCIA (Is a new CFV really needed ?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 22:16:21 GMT
Followup-To: poster

In article <1992Apr16.162714.29567@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, chohan@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Harpal Chohan) writes:
> In article <1992Apr16.143920.9962@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> alok@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (alok.vijayvargia) writes:
> >
> 
> >Part 2:
> >
> >Look at the statistics for soc.culture.usa.
> >It is carried by 46 % sites.
> >
> >Now make an assumption which is quite reasonable, IMHO:
> >
> >1) soc.culture.usa is carried in USA sites primarily
> >2) it is carried in most of the USA sites.
> >
> >This would give an estimated number of sites of the total, in USA.
> >
> >Conclusion A: USA has about 46 % of the total worldwide sites.
> 
> A substantial percentage of the posts on soc.culture.usa are from 
> european and australian sites. 

Any idea what percentage we are talking about here ?

> Your assumptions and conclusions are invalid.
> 
>      [...Rest of the thesis deleted...]
> 
You may be right. I haven't studied the soc.culture.usa posting sites as yet. 
However you can not deny that postings coming on scia are almost all of them
from USA sites. Since you yourself state that some 40+ percent sites are
carrying SCIA, chances are high that they are mostly USA sites.


> doubt trumpeted claims of having gone through mit. 

Well, you can see  the Alumni directory of MIT or call the Alumni office to
verify that. It is as simple as that.

> Btw, what are your expected
> responsibilities at ATT? Cleaning keyboards? 

No I do systems engineering research in Network Services area.

> Do they know you manage to sneak in a few posts now and then?

??????

> Now here's a free clue. The 42% statistic you tout is meaningless. The 
> majority of the news admins, I doubt, know of your existence and the
> scia controversy. Those who do, have either decided to carry or not to
> carry it, or are waiting for the outcome of the fresh vote before acting.

Granted.

> In either case, the group is not on Gene Spafford's official list which
> periodically goes out as a 'checkgroups'. Once C News checkgroups is
> fixed, as promised in the near future, and checkgroups messages tend
> not to be largely ignored, the group will be weeded out as sites 
> do their periodic housecleaning on their active files. It's only
> a matter of time. 

Possibly.

> 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).

> To stay in the long run, the group needs to be legitimately
> on the list. The only way for that to happen is a clean fair vote.

However a fresh vote may or may not pass the group at this time.
Reason: A significant number of anti-immigrant postings (not from me)
is likely to have turned of a lot of Permanent Resident voters.
(a number of them are the P2-list people).  They started posting and
I posted some articles for their interest, however they seem to have shyed
away or simply felt insulted enough (Thanks to Pravin Ratnam and 
Mr Dilip Sharma !) to not post any further on this group.

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 ...

The group is becoming more and more a second-generation Indian-American group.
There aren't simply enough of them around to pass this group. My statistics
of previous vote shows that only 50 % of the YES votes came from
second-generation IAs. That simply isn't enough.

This situation needs to be remedied before a revote is done, if at all the 
group is to pass. This is my hunch and that is why I have been arguing
for time delay, some of which is required by virtue of the net guidelines.

> I'd suggest you calm down and let that be conducted. Your ridiculous
> attempts at foiling that, only tend to identify you further in a negative
> manner with the group. This, believe it or not, is going to be
> counterproductive for the group's existence when the vote actually takes place.
> 
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 :-).

You and your cronies have been wonderful detractors :-)

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.

Are you now convinced that the group is needed ? Are you going to vote 
for it ?

How am I to believe that you have the best interests for this group in 
mind ? And not a showdown ?

> -h
> 

Alok