"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
PG wrote:
"John Briggs" wrote in message
...
David Off wrote:
John Briggs wrote:

Strictly speaking, those who are not interested in such a group and
would not take part in it, should not vote.

So only yes voters should take part in the vote... now I know where
Saddam Hussein's electorial commission have found work!

Well, certainly, if you have no interest in the uk.* hierarchy you
should
not be voting "no".

Why's that? If someone is interested in preserving rsre from what he may
believe could result in unnecessary duplication and consequent dilution
of
posters between groups, he is quite entitled to vote, imo.


The uk.* hierarchy is for existing and potential users of that hierarchy.
"Preserving" one's own preferred group is not a valid reason for
interfering
in someone else's hierarchy. Has it it occurred to you that something
which
needs "preserving" in this way, may not be worth preserving?
--

If I am given a vote, then I'm entitled to use it. Your position is absurd
to my mind. My reasons for voting no go against the grain as far as you are
concerned, and you respond by suggesting that potential no-voters shouldn't
be able participate because they are "abusing the system"? Nonsense - change
the system if you're not happy.

Anyway, your argument is self-contradictory. On the one hand you say that
the uk. hierarchy is for potential users (such as myself) and then you say
that because I disagree with your position vis this particular group my
reasons for voting against are not valid. You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and rsre is an excellent forum, if a little quiet during the summer
months (despite my efforts on the green stuff). Unlike some who have
suddenly taken an interest in this thread, I and most others who contribute
regularly to this forum actually practice the sport.

Pete