[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris Sotiropoulos FUD follows Hugh Blair FUD to: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris, Where is that Registered Restricted Letter? Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee
Joanna:
Sotiris claims that a "Restricted Delivery" letter (one that must be
delivered to the named recipient, against an ID) is good enough to verify a
member of this organization. He has used that method to do so. For you and
anyone else that does not want Jeff Williams to be verified to continue to
make excuses not to do so, simply brands you all as people who will
arbitrarily change the rules when they want to discriminate against someone.
You know as well as I do that if I stay for a day in a motel, I can have a
Restricted Delivery letter delivered to me at that physical address and it
is less likely to be my address than a P.O Box rented in my name. A P.O.
Box where the United States Postal Service is only permitted to deliver a
Restricted Delivery letter to the named recipient against a valid ID. Of
course there is a possibility that someone could cheat the system. You have
just stated that you are prepared to lie to the Postal authorities in order
to forge Jeff Williams' signature on a Restricted Delivery receipt, in order
to retrieve the code and prove that you are him.
Well, Joanna as long as we have people like you who are prepared to make
your written claim that you will commit that type of Postal fraud, simply as
an excuse to stop Sotiris from applying the same rules to Jeff Williams as
he claims work perfectly well for others, we do have a problem that is far
greater than our Jeff Williams problem. If you are going to use the
argument that everyone in the world is as dishonest as you claim to be,
there are very few verification systems that can't be cheated.
Ron Sherwood
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>; "Sotiris Sotiropoulos"
<sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris Sotiropoulos FUD follows Hugh
Blair FUD to: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris, Where is that Registered
Restricted Letter? Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership Committee
> Sending a registered letter to a PO Box is not sufficient evidence on its
> own to verify that a person is who they say they are. There would need to
be
> other evidence of the name as well.
>
> The owner of a PO Box receives any mail sent that address, regardless of
who
> it is addressed to, so the PO Box Jeff has provided may exist, but be
> registered in another name. If you don't believe me, send a letter to my
PO
> Box, and/ or to Michael's PO Box, (doesn't have to be registered) both
> addressed to Jeff Williams, with secret code.
>
> Joanna
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ron Sherwood [mailto:sherwood@islands.vi]
> > Sent: 12 June 2003 07:59
> > To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris Sotiropoulos FUD follows Hugh
> > Blair FUD to: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris, Where is that
> > Registered Restricted Letter? Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional
> > Membership Committee
> >
> >
> > Sotiris:
> >
> > A Panel member who belligerently declares that he will only verify Jeff
> > Williams if he provides a mailing address that can receive a Restricted
> > Delivery letter. And then, when an address is provided, that Panel
member
> > spends days spouting myriad excuses for not doing so, there is a serious
> > credibility issue.
> >
> > Your latest excuse is that Jeff Holt is going to try to meet with Jeff
> > Williams at some point in time and space that may or may not happen
> > depending upon the will of both parties. Why would you use this
> > latest ploy
> > to evade doing what you said you would do days ago? If you really want
to
> > verify Jeff Williams. Sending the letter may save Jeff Holt an 800 mile
> > road trip and all the time and expenses involved. If Jeff Holt makes
the
> > trip anyway you have a double verification. If The letter is returned
as
> > undeliverable you can claim that Jeff is not verified. If Jeff Williams
> > doesn't show up for a face to face meeting, you have doubly
> > verified that he
> > is a fraud as you claim. If you don't send the letter and Jeff Williams
> > claims that he somehow missed Jeff Holt at the meeting place, we have
made
> > zero progress. And you look even sillier for failing to do what you
said
> > you would do.
> >
> > Just do it, Sotiris... send the letter. I would do it myself (at a far
> > lower cost to me, since I am paying your outrageous Canadian postal cost
> > anyway). The only reason that I have not already done so is
> > because I don't
> > want to risk being subjected to your venomous condemnation as a fraud if
I
> > have to report that I did indeed receive proof of delivery.
> >
> > Ron Sherwood
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > To: "Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>
> > Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 7:02 AM
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris Sotiropoulos FUD follows Hugh
> > Blair FUD to: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris, Where is that
Registered
> > Restricted Letter? Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional Membership
Committee
> >
> >
> > > Ron,
> > >
> > > In case you hadn't noticed (how could you not?), Jeff Holt has offered
a
> > > face to face meet-up with our JW. I defer to his approach as it will
> > > conclusively establish the verification of JW. Now, you can continue
> > > calling me names (sticks and stones etc.,), but understand that in
light
> > > of the offer made by Jeff Holt, I would be happy to let him provide us
> > > with conclusive evidence.
> > >
> > > --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > >
> > > P.S. BTW, I have nothing personal against JW, Ron, so please do not
> > > waste your time and energies trying to make a mountain out of a
> > molehill.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ron Sherwood wrote:
> > >
> > > >Sotiris:
> > > >
> > > >My mailing address is a P.O. Box. It is the only address that you
can
> > send
> > > >mail to. I am paying for you to send a Restricted Delivery letter to
> > Jeff
> > > >Williams at his P.O. Box address. You have said many times that you
> > will,
> > > >but on every occasion you have reneged on that promise. It seems
that
> > your
> > > >word is absolutely worthless. How can you so patently and so
blatantly
> > show
> > > >your willingness to discriminate against someone that you dislike in
a
> > > >simple process that will cost you nothing.
> > > >
> > > >Again, Sotiris, this is nothing to do with whether you like or
dislike
> > Jeff
> > > >Williams. Or whether you want or do not want him to be verified. It
is
> > about
> > > >telling the world that you will send a Restricted mail letter
> > to Jeff if
> > he
> > > >gives you an address to send it to. You have repeatedly said that
you
> > will
> > > >and have repeatedly made excuses for not doing so. You are
> > showing every
> > > >member of this organization that your word means nothing, that
> > you place
> > > >your own subjective viewpoint before the organizational rules that
you
> > > >proposed and that you have applied to others.
> > > >
> > > >If you do not immediately send a Restricted Delivery letter to the
> > mailing
> > > >address that Jeff Williams provided you will indelibly brand
> > yourself as
> > a
> > > >cheat and a liar and unfit for any office.
> > > >
> > > >Just do it Sotiris. Stop the excuses.
> > > >
> > > >Ron Sherwood
> > > >
> > > >----- Original Message -----
> > > >From: "Sotiris Sotiropoulos" <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> > > >To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> > > >Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> > > >Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:47 PM
> > > >Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris Sotiropoulos FUD follows Hugh
> > Blair
> > > >FUD to: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Sotiris, Where is that Registered
> > > >Restricted Letter? Re: [atlarge-discuss] Provisional
> > Membership Committee
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>A P.O. Box is NOT a proper address. You live somewhere... please
send
> > > >>me the addres where you reside. You can do so offlist if you
> > so choose,
> > > >>but I will not consider a P.O. box to be a proper, verifiable
address.
> > > >> There's a reason why mail orders don't deliver to P.O. boxes.
> > > >>
> > > >>--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > >>
> > > >>Jeff Williams wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>Sotiris and all fellow members,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hugh was incorrect. The address I gave you 7 times now
> > > >>>is my legal and proper Mailing address. The address for
> > > >>>My company is 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. As I have so many
> > > >>>times pointed out.
> > > >>>My proper Mailing address is and has been for 14 years is:
> > > >>>Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > >>>p.o. Box 1843
> > > >>>Frisco Texas, 75034
> > > >>>
> > > >>>usps phone # for Dallas and the Frisco area is:
> > > >>>1-800-275-8777 - Ask for direct line to the Frisco
> > > >>>post office.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>Thanks to Hugh, for pointing out the dilemma involved in pinning
Mr.
> > > >>>>Jeff Williams down to a fixed address.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>Hugh Blair wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> > > >>>>>>From: Jeff Williams
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>No mail Box's on Route 1,Rual area of Gunter. Hence why
> > > >>>>>>my Mailing address for mail delivery is p.o.. Box 1843 Frisco
> > > >>>>>>Texas 75034 and has been for 14 years.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>Been there "for 14 years"? Are you lying now - or then?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/0106/msg00019.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>http://dict.regex.info/ipv6/6bone/6bone.mail-1999-05/0060.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > >
> >
>>>>>http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-dnso/archive/msg00051.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc09/msg01587.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> > >>>>http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/apnic-talk/archive/2000/02/
> > msg00023.h
> > t
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >ml
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg18671.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>http://archive.nznog.org/2001-07/msg00158.html
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> > >>>>http://lists.research.netsol.com/pipermail/uwho/2001-November/
> > 000023.htm
> > l
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>There's 8 *different* lists where you posted an address - within
> > > >>>>>the last "14 years" that's different from "Gunter". So when were
> > > >>>>>you lying? Then? Now? Are you even in Texas? Kansas? Oz?
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Just more TEXAS BULL.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>Hugh
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > >
> >
>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > >>>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
> > atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>--
> > > >>>>-----------
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> > > >>>>ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> > > >>>>But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena,
> > just as for
> > > >>>>modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> > > >>>>and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that
> > jurisprudence can tell
> > > >>>>minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> > > >>>>power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to
> > history's questions
> > > >>>>about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> > > >>>>nothing."
> > > >>>> --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
> > > >>>>
> > >
> >
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > > >>>>For additional commands, e-mail:
atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>--
> > > >>>Jeffrey A. Williams
> > > >>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k
> > members/stakeholders strong!)
> > > >>>"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
> > > >>> Pierre Abelard
> > > >>>===============================================================
> > > >>>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > > >>>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > > >>>E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > > >>>Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>--
> > > >>-----------
> > > >>
> > > >>"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> > > >>ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> > > >>But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as
for
> > > >>modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
> > > >>
> > > >>From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> > > >>and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can
tell
> > > >>minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> > > >>power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's
questions
> > > >>about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> > > >>nothing."
> > > >> --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > "The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> > > ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> > > But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
> > > modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
> > >
> > > From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> > > and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
> > > minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> > > power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
> > > about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> > > nothing."
> > > --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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