> wrote:

> Wrong thread for that sort of discussion. It's a call for votes, not a
> call for whingers to moan and groan about being ignored becuase their
> objections aren't being agreed with. Nothing flew over my head other
> than your need to go on and on and on about something that is obviuosly
> outside your bounds of control. Do you like to be controlling and hate
> it when things don't go your way?

I'm arguing my case in the only thread that is relevant to it. Are you
trying to be controlling of what and where people post? What a
hypocrite!

> > It is unethical to vote "YES" for a group one couldn't care less about.
> > What an unprincipled decision!
>
> What's more unethical than hijacking a thread about a new aus food
> group to rant and rave about your feelings on the whole aus hierarchy?

Hijacking a thread, indeed! Any thread about any new group in an
administrative newsgroup is almost by definition about the whole
hierarchy too, when there are issues that obviously touch the whole.
Duh!

> You're allowed your opinion and yes, you've made it perfectly clear
> many, many times. Have you thought about the negative impact that it
> could have on other posters attitude toward the subject? Feh, talk
> about principles.

Why, yes, one posts one's opinion to have a negative or positive or
neutral impact, as the case may be. Else why post at all? Have I had
such a negative impact on you? Has your attitude toward the subject
suffered a lot? Oh, the poor, poor attitude! And such a touchy concern
for those hapless sheep (other posters) who cannot even form their own
opinion! You wouldn't know principles if they hit your on the head.

Victor