[atlarge-discuss] He Must be Right (was "it Must be Right")

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

I will release later today a statement after legal and police council. I am 
glad to see that SS apologizes for every of his racist words, except to 
French people. I am also glad that SS is now proposing to use our current 
system for the elections he wants to organize.

1. a few days ago SS ignored everything about Mailman and now pretend to 
know it better that Thomas Roessel and to run it for this list. May be as 
he took months to propose a racist insulting site against one of the 
Panelists?

2. now SS has read a mail I sent or replied for Claude Thielet. By lack of 
room on my machine I do not keep much. May be will he read the archives a 
little further (everyone can) and will understand why and how this called 
upon the help of Thomas to be eventually solved. All this is reported in 
the archives.

3. now SS - who has not understood the mechanism of this vote yet - wants 
to create suspicion in saying that the program I released is _not_ the one 
I use. If this was the case I would be immediately exposed either by the 
Polling Committee members who can run it, or by the inspectors the Panel 
may have elected to verify the vote and inspect the archives.

We all know what many want: the list of the Members e-mails and a copy of 
what they voted. I am sorry; our role was to protect it. Once the new Panel 
is elected this will be their decision.


On 03:51 30/05/03, Sotiris Sotiropoulos said:
> I suggest we go with an outside party, one intimatey familiar with our 
> politics but not personally involved in any of it.  Something like a 
> Parliamentarian Speaker of the House.
This is why I said I will run the election and quit.

> I believe that Danny Younger has time to kill and he knows all about our 
> internicine circumstances, if you will.  Yet, he's not a member and cannot 
> aspire to any position in the election he might conceivably organize if we 
> were to ask him. Along with Danny, I would include Joanna Lane, David 
> Farrar, and Rod Dixon as election scrutineers.
I personally prefer people with no agenda or having committed to quit. But 
most of all - good or poor - people elected to carry the job. What 
legitimacy would have people chosen by SS (or any other single one or 
party)? We are not here on an agenda, but to fulfill a duty - I am not of 
the resigning style.Sorry.

>  We could use a mailman list for the vote which only the P.O. and the 
> scrutineers monitoring the email ballots will recieve.
Ouaff ouaff. This is what we do !!!! But to be sure that ballots will stay 
secret and that ALAC people (even if we had ten spies among IDed watchdogs) 
the ballots origin are anonimized by Mailman. We only face the problem that 
a significant number of voters left or added their name in the text. So you 
have to trust Bruce, Eric and me will not disclose you and your email address.

> Each can tabulate and then publish their results for public 
> comparison.  That would be fair, in my estimation.
Yes. But it could be biased. What we do is that _every member_ including 
Sotiris can tabulate and cross check.

> As or the candidates.  Each must be verified via either Paypal, or digital 
> certificate before they can stand for office.
Or by "laposte.net" French post office web of trust organized at the demand 
of the French PM?

The first right of Internet individuals is the right to alias. And the 
first right of Internet groups is to be free of clones. None of the 
solutions proposed so far by SS is satisfactory to that ends.

The only pragmatic solution I found (upon police experts advice) until now 
is the risk of exposure. Let assume that a clone is elected, he will 
dramatically increase his risks to be exposed. So what will he do? He will 
run to add credibility to his fake ID or to protect and then he will claim 
the whole thing is a sham and a fraud before he can be exposed (could be 
elected). Either to break the election, either to dismay voters and not be 
elected, either to give credibility to an unknown straw candidate or to 
avoid to show he pretended having a stamina he has not (another type of 
pretence).

This a typified attitude in all the groups and lists around the world. In 
who-dunn-its you must ask yourself about the woman, in real life you must 
ask yourself "why does he do that?"

> > To answer that, it is best to look at the result of Jefsey's work and 
> > then make up our mind about going along with the members that have 
> > suggested giving the interim authority to the top five choices.
> No.  My answer is better and more likely to bring about a trusted state of 
> Order.  If you choose to perpetuate Jefsey's farce things will only 
> spiral, I promise you.
True.

You will progressively spiral in stability. This will not be achieved in 
one day. You will have first to deal wish SS if he is elected, and his 
WXW's like attitude if he is not. The only solution we will have IMHO is 
outreach and national @large groups (like other intl institutions) to 
contain such people by local elections. If Canada chose to be represented 
by SS this will be their choice, until now I think there are enough other 
Canadian people on this list for me to believe that SS's Trudeau like style 
is not representative of his whole country.

> > Do you want to be among those, Sotiris?
> Not at the price of having such a swindle pulled off.  No thanks.
If I understand well such "a swindle" boils down to SS not having read and 
understood a few mails from different English and non English speaking 
people. So I should assume _entire_ responsibility for that "swindle": I 
fought (only because I thought it fair due to the work he made in WGs) to 
have SS nominated. But I so doing I probably did not fully consider the 
advises I myslef voted.

> > Mistrust and walking away is justified when we see an actual hijack.
> > What we see is 3 volunteers who have assumed responsibility and (wrongly) 
> > authority.
> Only responsible people can assume responsibility.
Yes. This is where I was wrong. SS is not of that stamina.

> Listening to these three telling us about bank holidays,  Mother days, 
> trips across the country back and forth, time constraints, and small town 
> bible gospel meetings, this for me is not a good indication of 
> responsibility towards something for which they seemingly volunteered.  No 
> sirree, not a good indication at all.
Seems that SS has a lot of time to waste. He might have volunteered to help.

> > Before you call for total demolition it is better to see first what has 
> > been achieved with the work done and what can be salvaged.
> My proscription stands as I've stated above.  Nothing can be salvaged from 
> this mess.  If you build on mud, the foundation cannot be trusted. You 
> ought to know that.
This comments of mine were for the records.
This will be explained latter on.
jfc


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de