[atlarge-discuss] RE: apology refused

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Ron,
I'll take that as a NO then.
Welcome to my recycle bin, with immediate effect.

Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Sherwood [mailto:sherwood@islands.vi]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 14:35
> To: Joanna Lane; Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: 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