Re: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good afternoon, Micheal:

Obviously I do not agree with your assessment of the situation.

I did not list my complaints against Jeff Williams, because that was not the
purpose of my message.  You (and others) have done that repeatedly, and
again in your message copied below. Describing the reasons why this person
is disliked or should not be a committee member has nothing to do with
whether or not  he was offered the option of mail verification (he was) and
whether he chose to use it (he did) and whether or not the verifiers
bothered to attempt that verification (it appears that they did not) or
whether they simply wanted to state that he was not verified (they
apparently did).

If you were to call my published telephone number, and I were to answer with
my name, and we proceeded to discuss this topic (and many others that have
taken place over the past week or so),  you would be a strange bird indeed
if you decided that it was not me that you were talking to. (I did these
things in order to satisfy myself that Jeff Williams was a real person at
the phone number he published).  For you to suggest that my dog might answer
the phone and that you could not tell the difference, does not say very much
for your cognitive skills.

Micheal, don't patronize me with your talk of how the US Postal Service
works.  Either you are looking for excuses or you know less about the USPS
than I do.

The restricted Delivery service is a simple add-on to any of the other
postal services (all those that I listed in fact). it costs $3.50 and is a
requirement that the item be delivered only to a named person against some
sort of ID.  A driver's license is usually good enough, but I have seen all
sorts of ID used, from credit cards to voters registration cards to
passports.

When you try to excuse a failure to even _attempt_ certification by mail, on
the grounds that the United States Mail Service will not cooperate, you are
making a convenient assumption that is totally incorrect.  You may send a
Restricted Delivery letter to me at my mailbox and it is treated like any
other mail except that it will be handed to me personally.  You may not know
this, Micheal, but a huge number of Americans have a mailbox at the end of
their driveway.  In many rural areas, mail is not delivered to homes at all,
but to a block of mailboxes on a road junction somewhere, often many miles
from a remote farm or house.

Strange as it may seem to you, Micheal, some Americans even go to work
occasionally and are not at home when the Mail delivery person calls.  If
the Mailperson has an Express Mail package or a certified letter or a
Restricted Delivery letter or any of the many postal items that cannot be
left in a roadside mailbox, guess what?  Every one of those millions of
Americans are then treated just like those of us who have mailboxes. The
mailman leaves a little card that says, you must come to the counter at the
Post Office to retrieve the package or Restricted Delivery letter or
whatever. It usually advises that the item will be kept for 5 working days
before it is returned to the sender.  When you go to the Post Office to
collect your Restricted Delivery mail you are asked for identification.

Now, why don't you just tell me that you have sent a Restricted Delivery
letter to Jeff Williams and that it was returned because there is no such
person.  That would save you from having to make all those silly excuses for
failing to even try.
Strangely enough, if you had done this last week, the 5 day holding limit
might have kicked in during Jeff's absence, and you would have really had an
opportunity to crow... with a rejected piece of mail in your hand.  Why not
try it now, you might just get lucky.

I do understand that you are likely to try to obscure these facts with fancy
words like verbosity and obtuseness, and to tell me that my verbosity and my
obtuseness have somehow conspired to create a lack of credence for my
assertions, but...  wait a minute, you already did that.  Still, I am sure
you will think of something else.

Best regards to you my friend, Ron Sherwood

----- Original Message -----
From: "Micheal Sherrill" <mjsherril@yahoo.com>
To: "atlarge discuss list" <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee


> Hello Ron:
>
> Verbosity is no shield for obtuseness.  Your claims
> and assertions lack
> credence.
>
> I have inserted my replies to your email within your
> text below.  My
> comments are preceded by (MS).
>
> Micheal: It is true that some members who did not want
> Jeff Williams on
> the
> committee tried to claim that he could not be verified
> as a person.  I
> found
> none of the protesters were able to provide any valid
> reason other than
> their personal dislike of the gentleman.
>
> (MS)  There are many reasons to dislike Jeff Williams.
>  He has
> threatened people with lawsuits, threatened people by
> claiming to turn
> them in to the FBI, Homeland Security, and local
> police.  More so, he
> will not verify himself.  We have not tried to claim
> that he could not
> be verified as a person.  We have proved it, so far.
> You also try to
> turn the subject away from Jeff Williams and make it
> sound like a
> vendetta.  Sorry, but we were the committee that was
> verifying panel
> members and runners up.  How could we stand as a valid
> committee
> without verifying ourselves first?
>
> My reasoning is simple, like me.  The committee was
> open to all
> members.
> Eleven members volunteered to serve.  I have, in fact
> only spoken to
> two of
> them at telephone numbers published in their name, but
> I do believe
> those
> two exist as individuals regardless of the name they
> use.  The other
> nine
> were verified by various methods that were not
> necessarily any more
> foolproof than the conversations that I had with the
> two.  I merely
> wanted
> to show that the committee was inclusive, rather than
> exclusive as some
> would have it.
>
> (MS)  Your reasoning is not simple.  It is flawed.
> The committee
> undertook the verification of all volunteers.  Jeff
> Williams was not
> verified.  Regardless of whether or not the various
> methods were
> foolproof is no reason to deny the process.  Nothing
> is foolproof.  We
> had already agreed that verification could be achieved
> by many paths.
> Jeff Williams chose not to follow any of those paths.
> Therefore, he
> was not verified.  Calling someone on the phone was
> not one of the
> methods we had agreed was a viable method.  Even a dog
> can answer a
> telephone.
>
> I don't understand the fuss you are making. Since Jeff
> Williams chose
> not to
> participate anyway, your complaint cannot be that he
> had any adverse
> influence on the committee, so I am left with the
> assumption that you
> have a
> personal reason to send negative mail about the person
> that so many
> members
> love to hate.
>
> (MS)  Again, you are trying to turn the subject away
> from the issue and
> make it seem personal.  I already told you in earlier
> committee emails
> why including someone that is notorious for not
> accepting
> responsibility by authenticating themselves was
> diluting the good will
> of the committee.  How can a verification committee
> have as a member a
> person that will not verify?  It makes a mockery of
> what we were trying
> to accomplish and leaves us open to ridicule.
>
> Please justify the statements in your post by showing
> us all your proof
> that
> Jeff Williams cannot be reached with Restricted mail
> as you claim.  I
> have a
> mailbox (everyone here does, that's how we get our
> mail).  I receive
> regular
> USPS mail, Express Mail, Priority Mail, Registered
> Mail, Certified
> Delivery
> Mail, Return Receipt Mail, Express Mail packages,
> Priority Mail
> packages,
> Registered Mail packages and any other service the
> United States Post
> Office
> provides... all to my mailbox address.  Are you sure
> you are stating
> facts
> here? Or is your dislike of Jeff Williams so great
> that you are
> prepared to
> pass off wishful thinking as fact?
>
> (MS) Again, you try to turn the subject away from the
> issue.  You list
> all the things you can receive in your mailbox.  You
> did not list the
> one thing you cannot.  A Restricted Delivery letter
> here in the United
> States can only be delivered to the person for whom it
> is addressed.
> The postalperson has to recognize the addressee.  A
> mailbox is not an
> addressee.  Usually, one has to produce a photo ID to
> sign for the
> letter.  Jeff Williams cannot receive a Restricted
> Delivery letter
> because he has a mailbox and no photo ID to claim the
> letter.
>
> This is not an endorsement of Jeff Williams, it is a
> concern that some
> members are too free with baseless allegations.
>
> (MS) This last sentence defies logic.  All the
> allegations are based on
> his own words to this list.  If you have not read Jeff
> Williams
> postings you are wasting the time and resources of
> this group.  And,
> yes, you are trying to endorse Jeff Williams.  You did
> so when you
> allowed him to be privy to the internal communications
> of the
> Provisional Membership Committee.  And you are still
> trying to endorse
> him even now.  Foremost, Jeff Williams needs to
> endorse himself.  And
> he cannot.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Micheal Sherrill
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>


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