Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee

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

Hello Micheal:
You wrote:

> 1.  a mailbox is not a physical address and has little weight for
verification

1) My mailbox is the place to mail things to me. They get to me. (Including
the precious bank account statement that PayPal uses to verify me) I am me.
If you send a Restricted Delivery letter to me with a verification code, I
will get it, return the code and you will be able to verify me.

> 2.  anybody can have a phone number and answer as Jeff Williams (even you)

2) Anyone can have a phone number and answer as Micheal Sherrill (even you),
but I would know if it was your dog that answered. (You may also be
surprised to find that real people often answer the phone with their name,
as in Ron Sherwood, Jeff Williams... How do you answer yours?)

> 3.  Jeff Williams was never verified

3) I am satisfied that Jeff Williams exists. No one else tried. (What a sad
reflection on the personal integrity of those that claim him to be
unverified).

> 4.  you defied the repeated requests of many of the committee members to
not include
> Jeff Williams in our internal communications because he was not verified

4) I asked questions of the few who had a private agenda that had nothing to
do with verification. It is interesting that you would see that as defiant.
(Besides, we are a transparent organization and all those messages are
available for public review).

By the way, Micheal you are wrong again (is it genetic?). If you check your
mail you will find that it was _not_ I who added Jeff Williams to the cc
email list. Although I do approve of the inclusive nature of such
correspondence.

My, how you do wriggle,  are you sure you tried to verify Jeff Williams
before declaring him unverified?

Regards, Ron

----- Original Message -----

> Hello Ron:
>
> You just wrote another 750 word reply that skirts, once again, the issues.
>
> 1.  a mailbox is not a physical address and has little weight for
verification
> 2.  anybody can have a phone number and answer as Jeff Williams (even you)
> 3.  Jeff Williams was never verified
> 4.  you defied the repeated requests of many of the committee members to
not include
> Jeff Williams in our internal communications because he was not verified
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Micheal Sherrill
>
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> Date:  Mon, 9 Jun 2003 15:45:27 -0400
>
> 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
>
>
> --
> Micheal Sherrill
> micheal@beethoven.com
>
> The owner of this signature has been authenticated by www.thawte.com as
> a Real Person.  The owner is also a Notary of the Web of Trust for
> www.thawte.com which is a third party verifier of high level
> certification.  Please go to their Web of Trust page at
> https://www.thawte.com/html/SUPPORT/wot/general.html for information.
>
>
> --
>
> *************************************************
>  Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
>             http://www.beethoven.com
> Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!


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