"Normally create without a vote"?

[Anthony Tomlinson]

>K.C. Baker (mbkxb at s-crim1.dl.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: : Bert
>: I've got a better idea. Why don't we have a newsgroup especially for
all
>: this stuff?? I hereby propose bionet.spat.Dave'n'Una        8-) 
>: --
>:
>
>I hope you've written the charter already ! I definetly vote 'yes'. 
>I would really like to see this *kind* of *discussion* going on because
it's really 
>amusing. Just the fact that the bionet.general is not the right place
for it (IMO). 
>Therefore, I support your proposal.

(snipped a bit)

I think this is a bit like the "split up molbio.mthds.rgnts" debate.  I
for one read bionet.general for general biology stuff AND to see what
Dave'n'Una are up to.  It's like reading NewScientist or Scientific
American in your lunch break - you get a digest of things outside your
field, and you also get a slice of the more comic and ridiculous
(deliberately or otherwise) side of scientific life.  So while I think a
vehicle for spats is a good idea (they really are VERY entertaining, and
always brighten up my day), any postings to bionet.spats.dave'n'una 
would invariably be cross-posted to bionet.general and/or read by readers
of bionet.general, and therfore I cannot support your earnest proposal.

Anthony

P.S.  But if you win the vote (do you need one?  I couldn't follow that
bit) how about bionet.LITE  ?  	8-)