It's a moot point for me--my ISP strips binaries from non-binary groups,
anyway.


"B.Server" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 03:12:44 GMT, "MikeT"
> > wrote:
>
> >I have read all the replies to date.
> >A resounding feeling of no binaries to this group has been sent and
heard.
> >Also provided were suggestions of where to get the old posts to ABF.
> >(change news providers came up a few times as did a site which is
archiving
> >posted binaries.)
> >
> >
> >
> >The wording that I used caused confusion as to respondents intent.
> >Fortunately many of you also saw fit to clearly add to the response.
> >This is something not easily done in most voting situations.
> >
> >
> >The question asked if there was objection.
> >
> >Answering "NO" would mean that they had no objection. - binaries can go
here.
> >Answering "YES" would mean that they do have objection. - No binaries
allowed.
> >
> >
> >Most folks quickly responded "NO" meaning that they had no objection.
> >However, they then proceeded to object in no uncertain terms.
> >
> >Others properly answered in the affirmative, YES, they object.
> >
> >A few did not give a selection (which in this case would have been a "NO"
> >response, indicating that they would accept binaries) However, they, too,
made
> >points that would seem that they object to binaries in this group.
> >
> >Actual Results are a mess.
> >I clearly see how the presidential election became so F-ed up.
> >Many of the "ballots" contain contradictory responses and would have been
> >declared invalid.
> >
> >-miket
> >
>
> Guilty as charged. Kind of embarrassing as I live in Texas where the
> purposeful obscuring of the purpose and effect of ballot measures by
> our esteemed legislature is a minor art form. Triple negatives,
> anyone? Fortunately, they have not yet passed a measure that permits
> them to do as they please if everyone votes against a proposition.
> Thus the reflex to vote no automatically; absent a very strong reason
> to do otherwise.
>
> And thank you for the honesty to recognize that the commentary
> probably reflects the sentiment of the voter more accurately than the
> (IMO) backwards proposition. Another difference from "real" politics.
>
>
>
>