[Wikipedia-l] Re: New logo and further process

[Gareth Owen]

David Friedland <david at nohat.net> writes:

> tarquin wrote:
> > Gutza wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Ok, but what can you do? The voting has been fair (give or take, but the
> >> overall result can't be contested). That's what people want, what can you
> >> do? Really, what *can* you do?
> >>
> > Well since we can "ratify", I'm voting to ratify a different finalist.
> > The current winner should be disqualified on technical grounds -- it simply
> > does not meet the design brief of the competition.
> 
> I agree. Indeed, the current winner should have been disqualified when people
> first raised their objections to it. 

FTJ.  Perhaps we should skip the endless recounts and objections over the
method, and just ask Jeb Bush to refer the whole matter to the Supreme Court 

I would like to thank you guys (you will note, this present bunch of pissing
and moaning is by a group entirely composed of guys) and your ability to
squabble to excrutiating lengths about what are, in the long run, complete
irrelevancies for providing me with endless amusement.

Calm down.  It's just a logo.  
Go out on the street and ask people what the logo of Encyclopedia Brittanica
looks like?  Do they even have one?  

Sometimes this list feels like the lost "B Arc" of the Golgafrinchams.
Don't you people have telephones to sanitise?
-- 
Gareth Owen
"It's not a human or civic right to edit wikipedia."
                                 -- kq cuts to the core of the banning debate