[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: apology required
Joanna:
Your negative comments about the limitations of ID requirements at the Post
Office are all repeats of what I and others have stated earlier.
Every discussion I have referred to has been about Sotiris' determination
that he could verify a member by sending a RESTRICTED DELIVERY letter
including a secret code to a mailing address provided by that member.
My response to Sotiris' excuses for reneging on his promise to send a
RESTRICTED DELIVERY letter to JW is [referenced below]
You replied to that response which included the specific term "RESTRICTED
DELIVERY LETTER" by stating
> > > 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.
You are incorrect in stating that the owner of the box gets all mail sent to
that address. The owner will not receive any mail that carries the
RESTRICTED DELIVERY add-on service. What the owner will get is a card to
take to the counter where they must prove their Identity before the postal
item is delivered.
You are correct in stating that a RESTRICTED DELIVERY letter does not have
to be registered. The RESTRICTED DELIVERY service is available for most
types of mail, including any first class letter.
When you replied to a message that specifically and only refers to a secret
code being sent in a RESTRICTED DELIVERY LETTER to a mailbox, with a
statement that specifically asks me to send such a letter to your mailbox so
that you can prove how you can get at the secret code inside such a letter,
then it is reasonable to assume that you are casting doubt on the RESTRICTED
DELIVERY method of verification (registered or not) that is the basis of
this entire thread.
I cannot imagine that an intelligent person with no motivation to muddy the
water would subsequently write to say that although she responded to my
discussion of the RESTRICTED DELIVERY verification system, she was really
writing about a totally different subject. And when she challenged me to let
her show me how she could retrieve a secret code from such a letter, she did
not really mean to say that she could retrieve the secret code from such a
letter. But that she could only do so if the letter was sent with a
different method of delivery.
Now, Joanna, either you did try to introduce the different method of
delivery in order to assist and support those among us who are searching for
ways not to have to verify Jeff Williams, or you wrote about something that
has nothing whatsoever to do with the post to which you replied.
Please let me know which it is, so that I know whether or not to "demand an
apology" from you.
Ron Sherwood
[Referenced response from Ron Sherwood]
> 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.
----- 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 12:48 PM
Subject: apology required
> Ron wrote:
> > 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,
>
> Your spin is so far out of line here I could sue you for libel. I have not
> and do not and never will commit any kind of US postal fraud, neither have
I
> advocated any such thing. Obviously, you cannot read straight. I was
simply
> making the point that anyone can send a letter in any name to any PO Box
and
> it will be delivered. I specifically said NOT a registered letter and for
> your information, as Joey has confirmed, the US postal service does NOT
> always check ID before handing over a special delivery, indeed it is my
> experience that they rarely do, in much the same way they do not in
England,
> although at least there they check the person is known at the address and
> obtain a signature from whoever accepts the letter.
>
> You also wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> To twist this debate into a completely false allegation that anyone who
> exposes a weakness in the system is themselves dishonest, is not very
smart
> thing to do. Your statement is ridiculous. That's like my saying that you
> are a burglar simply because you told your neighbor he should get some
> better security installed. If one is discussing ways in which to verify
the
> membership, then one has to debate ways in which those who want to beat
the
> system can do so.
>
> So you can apologies immediately for your false allegations and if you do
> not do so within 24 hours of this letter posting to the public list, then
I
> will no longer work with you and will be filtering your mail directly to
the
> trash and not read another word you say.
>
> Joanna
>
>
> >
> > ----- 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
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de