And now, in high fidelity ASCII, it's Nick Andrew with some words for
aus.net.news:

}Any proposal contentious enough to cause an organised "Vote No"
}campaign deserves to fail. There's clearly something wrong with
}the proposal, and a group won't go through until that problem is
}recognised and addressed. So I don't see it as a risk.
}
}There could still be otherwise-good proposals failed by a no-voting
}bloc if the group topic was particularly contentious. For example I
}would expect a group aus.abortion.centres would fail a vote because
}right-to-lifers would object to the possibility of pro-abortionists
}discussing (rating, etc) abortion centres. But if the group were
}to pass, then it would be a big flame fest anyway, so failing it
}is no loss.

How about aus.abortion.centres.moderated, though?

I could see that being sufficiently contentious to attract an organised No
vote without endangering the content of the group if it should pass.

Then again, I deal with hypotheticals a lot. <G>

--
Brett

"I'm a Greek God, you're Nick Giannopolous
I'm Julio Iglasias, you're Tommy Raudonikis"