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

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Ron Sherwood [mailto:sherwood@islands.vi]
|> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:26 AM
|> To: micheal@beethoven.com; At Large Discuss
|> Subject: Re: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee
|>

Comments within the quoted text as appropriate.

|> Dassa and Micheal:
|>
|> I wonder how soon you will say the same things about me.

I don't know you or of you Ron, nor have I had any reason to validate
your identity.

|> After all, I do not agree with the your belief that a
|> verification panel should be making subjective decisions
|> about whether they like a person enough to try to verify him
|> or her. That seems to make me your enemy.

Not my enemy Ron, I really don't care that strongly about the subject
although I dislike you misrepresenting my position in such a way.  My
points have been that there has already been a great deal of objective
decisions made about the particular person "Jeff Williams".  If there
are other instances where you believe wrongs have been committed, I have
not commented on them, limiting myself strictly to the one person and
their identity.

|> Why is it that when people may be verified by sending a
|> secret code by Restricted Mail to their mailing address, the
|> verifiers choose not to send such mail to someone they don't
|> like?  That is the only question here... nothing else. I
|> cannot imagine why people would go to such lengths to try to
|> justify such discriminatory behavior.  Even Sotiris has had
|> the decency to get past that hurdle and has promised to send
|> a letter.

There is such a thing as time wasting.  But I'm happy if Jeff Williams
pays the price and the letter is sent.  I certainly have no objections
to the process being used providing the organisation isn't left footing
the bill.

|> Listing historical anecdotes and repeatedly explaining why
|> you don't like a person does not excuse this behavior.  If
|> you are so sure that Jeff Williams cannot pass the
|> verification test that you have devised, then why not send
|> him the letter?  Could it be that you are secretly not so
|> sure at all? Could it be that you are frightened that he
|> will receive the letter and return the code?  Could it be
|> that you are so afraid that Jeff Williams might actually be
|> real enough for you to have to verify him, and then deal
|> with his behavior in a way that is different from your
|> current attempts at ostracism by discrimination?

You have the wrong idea about my feelings regarding Jeff Williams.  If I
think of him at all it is with amusement and sometimes wonder for the
amount of effort he puts into certain things.  I do know that even if it
turns out Jeff Williams is his real name, the majority of personal
claims he has made regarding his education and employment have already
been proven false to my satisfaction.  That is not ostracism by
discrimination but accepting the individual has a limited grasp on the
truth and being wary of it.

|> Just send a letter and keep your fingers crossed.  Who
|> knows, since you are so sure of your facts, you are bound to
|> get the letter returned as undeliverable. Then you can
|> breath a sigh of relief and start to be honest again.

Ron, Ron, Ron, such an inefficient method of calling someone dishonest
and very transparent.  In my case I'm afraid you have confused me with
someone who cares about this particular little sideline interlude.

As a thought, doesn't the USA have a system for numbering all the
citizens?  Social Security number isn't it, couldn't this be used to
validate identities?  Or is it a restricted system.  I have to admit
I've never looked into it.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch



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