Re: [atlarge-discuss] A Fully Active Panel...

["A/S Mauro D. Ríos" <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>]

Jeff W.,
(and @Large)

In the first place, you have violated the confidentiality of correspondence
when making public a PRIVATE e-mail, clearly this message went an answer to
your insistent ones e-mails, and that, as I mentioned you, I had given had
finished the topic.

My message was titled: "PERSONAL MAIL [atlarge-discuss] AFully it Activates
Panel..."  and you only received it.

And I see that you continue giving turns and turns and turns and turns with
a bag of nuts, making noise more and more. Jeff, respect your point of view,
but you would should to begin to respect the point of view of the other
ones, up to now you have not responded more than with evasive and your
e-mails they are declarations of intentions and accusations, but like you
see, it is a monologue in the list.

It is curious as you renounce of @Large, you stone her but you continue
inside, participating of their structure (VC) and contributing how if you
had two personalities, I admire you double posture, although I don't share
your incoherence.

I complain that again a PRIVATE conversation, you decide in a daring way and
against all ethical norm, to take it to the public environment.  If it is
your intention to continue with this topic of the you illegitimate of the
organization and the Panel, you will be alone, it has already been too much
discussed the topic.

But, allow me then to illustrate the members the beginning of our PRIVATE
conversation, at the end I reproduce your initial e-mail and my initial
answer.

.............................
[ES] En primer lugar, has violado la confidencialidad de correspondencia al
hacer público un e-mail privado, claramente este mensaje fue una respuesta a
tus insistentes e-mails, y que, como te mencioné, yo había dado por
terminado el tema.

Mi mensaje se titulaba: "PERSONAL MAIL [atlarge-discuss] A Fully Active
Panel..."  y solamente lo recibiste tú.

Y veo que sigues dando vueltas y vueltas y vueltas y vueltas con una bolsa
de nueces, haciendo más y más ruido. Jeff, respeto tu punto de vista, pero
deberías por comenzar a respetar los punto de vista de los demás, hasta
ahora no has respondido más que con evasivas y se tus e-mails son
declaraciones de intenciones y acusaciones, pero como ves, es un monólogo en
la lista.

Es curioso como reniegas de @Large, la apedreas pero sigues dentro,
participando de su estructura (VC) y aportando cómo si tuvieras dos
personalidades, admiro tú doble postura, aunque no comparto tu incoherencia.

Lamento que nuevamente una conversación PRIVADA, tú decidas de forma
atrevida y contra toda norma ética, llevarla al ámbito público.  Si es tu
intención continuar con este tema de la "ilegitimad" de la organización y el
Panel, estarás solo, ya ha sido demasiado discutido el tema.

Pero, permíteme entonces ilustrar a los miembros el inicio de nuestra
conversación PRIVADA, al final reproduzco tu e-mail inicial y mi respuesta
inicial.

cordially
Mauro. -


=====================================================
======= ORIGINAL MESSAGE AND ORIGINAL ANSWER =======
======= MENSAJE ORIGINAL Y RESPUESTA ORIGINAL =======
=====================================================

----- Mensaje original -----
De: A/S Mauro D. Ríos
Para: Jeff Williams
CC: Blair, Hugh (@PM) ; Chirita, Daniel (@PM) ; Goldstein, David (@PM) ;
Lumantao, Gilbert (@PM) ; Rebentisch, Andre (@PM) ; Tobias, Daniel (@PM) ;
Wisman, Abel (@PM) ; Teernstra, Joop (@PM) ; Sotiropoulos, Sotiris (@PM)
Enviado: Viernes, 11 de Julio de 2003 12:18 a.m.
Asunto: OFF MASS LIST Re: [atlarge-discuss] A Fully Active Panel...

Jeff,

I fulfill the promise of responding minutely your arguments.
How I believe that this topic had already been enough, I send only copies to
the Panel, @Large has already dedicated too much ink to this topic.

----- Mensaje original -----
De: Jeff Williams
Para: A/S Mauro D. Ríos
CC: Atlarge Discuss List
Enviado: Jueves, 10 de Julio de 2003 05:02 a.m.
Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] A Fully Active Panel...

>Mauro and all fellow members,

--- Jeff say ---------------------------------------------
> Only a little over 200 members voted in a fraudulent election
>that has yet to be audited by any official audit service of
>any licensed creditability.  That will come back to haunt
>this fledgling organization at some point, and perhaps soon.

--- Mauro answer --------------------------------------
When the vote is not obligatory, the voting is low. It is a terrible
modality of Democracy, I have opposed to this voting type, but my point of
view was not shared. In many countries, the government's people ascend to
the power with very little votes, nobody says that they are illegitimate
representatives, but when a group of people settles in the government with
less than 20% or 30% of votes, the question is always the same one: To those
who represent?.

Anyway, here you repeat again that the elections are fraudulent, but you
don't explain to me the arguments that take you to that conclusion. The few
votes don't make it fraudulent.

Can an organism certifier assure that the election was fraudulent?, perhaps
yes, don't I doubt that you would find many, but do I believe that several
members of many countries could find other organisms that would affirm the
opposite. It is not good to say: I will accuse you with the Tribunal of
Madagascar (for example) and to repeat it several times, but anything
doesn't happen. If arguments exist against the elections, please make the
accusation in the organism that is pertinent.

It is much more harmful for @Large to play this game of saying that I will
accuse and I don't make it that to make the accusation once and for all.
Unless that the objective is (?).

[ES] Cuándo el voto no es obligatorio, la votación es baja. Es una pésima
modalidad de Democracia, yo me he opuesto a este tipo de votación, pero mi
punto de vista no fue compartido. En muchos países, las personas del
gobierno suben al poder con muy poco votos, nadie dice que son ilegítimos
representantes, pero cuándo un grupo de personas se instala en el gobierno
con menos de un 20% o 30% de votos, la pregunta siempre es la misma: ¿A
quienes representan?.

De todas maneras, aquí vuelves a repetir que las elecciones son
fraudulentas, pero no me explicas los argumentos que te llevan a esa
conclusión. Los pocos votos no la hacen fraudulenta.

¿Un organismo certificador puede asegurar que la elección fue fraudulenta?,
tal vez sí, no dudo que encontrarías muchos, pero creo que varios miembros
de muchos países podrían encontrar otros organismos que afirmarían lo
contrario. No es bueno decir: te voy a acusar con el Tribunal de Madagascar
(por ejemplo) y repetirlo varias veces, pero no sucede nada. Si existen
argumentos en contra de las elecciones, por favor hagan la denuncia en el
organismo que sea pertinente.

Resulta mucho más perjudicial para @Large jugar este juego de decir que voy
a acusar  y no lo hago que hacer de una vez la acusación. Salvo que ese sea
el objetivo (?).

--- Jeff say ---------------------------------------------
> That may be your point of view.  And perhaps others as well.
>But it is not well supported and certainly not well substantiated
>historically.

>> --- Jeff refers to: ---------------
>> I know that you have contributed a lot of ink to the list on this topic,
but
>> I find that much of that ink has finished with other colors and
diversifying
>> the points of view to lands that anything or little has to do with @Large
or
>> anything or little affects @Large.
>> The verbosity is not good friend to defend a point of view.


--- Mauro answer --------------------------------------
Your and other members, they have mentioned several times in this topic, is
a fraudulent election. Among several applied arguments, deviations have
taken place toward topics as the applied legislation, arriving to the end of
seeking to suffocate @Large for what solves a State in U.S.A. Without doubts
the topic is wide and it requires a deeper analysis and a deeper discussion.

But if @Large settles in another country, or does open its administrative
physical lease in Bantu-Africa or in Montevideo-Uruguay, what does it
happen?, what argument or can incidence have the North American
legislation?. What would they make those that use arguments so ambiguous, or
at least questionable, if @Large settles for example in SeaLand?. I don't
have doubts that we are where we are, we will be under the international
regulations and the general statutes that dictate the rules of international
game, but at local level, there is a lot of road to travel to determine
certainly what a @Large cares the legislation it has more than enough SPAM
or computer fraud, of the County of Manchuria in China for example.
...............
[ES] Tu y otros miembros, han dicho varias veces en este tema, que fue una
elección fraudulenta. Entre varios argumentos aplicados, se han producido
desviaciones hacia temas como la legislación aplicada, llegando al extremo
de pretender sofocar a @Large por lo que resuelve un Estado en U.S.A. Sin
dudas el tema es amplio y requiere un análisis más profundo y una discusión
más extensa.

Pero si @Large se instala en otro país, o abre su locación física
administrativa en Bantu-Africa o en Montevideo-Uruguay, qué pasa?, qué
argumento o incidencia puede tener la legislación norteamericana?. Qué
harían los que esgrimen argumentos tan ambiguos, o al menos cuestionables,
si @Large se instala en SeaLand por ejemplo?. No tengo dudas que estemos
dónde estemos, vamos a estar bajo las regulaciones internacionales y los
estatutos generales que dictan las reglas de juego internacional, pero a
nivel local, hay mucho camino por recorrer para determinar ciertamente qué
le importa a @Large la legislación sobre SPAM o fraude informático, de la
Provincia de Manchuria en China por ejemplo.


--- Jeff say ---------------------------------------------
> I dislike stones in the road as well.  As Eric, Jefsey and Bruce have
>introduced such stones, they now must be removed or gone around
>in order to positively, honestly and skillfully continue down
>a positive road...

--- Mauro answer --------------------------------------
I want that is this way that you and we all change the attitude and let us
look for to build @Large and to improve it, but that is made thinking
positive and understanding that a I restart it is not always perfect.
Neither it is good to question the organization, and to all their members
for that there are people that have failed in the past. It is as saying that
the Democracy is bad for that who tried to implement it they failed or they
became fond with the power and they established a dictatorship a little
later time. For that to obsess us with a rotten tree, can make us forget to
see that behind the forest explodes of green and healthy trees. Please begin
to work and to look for to obtain results that they can be shown to all us
(the members).
..................
[ES] Deseo que así sea, que tú y todos cambiemos la actitud y busquemos
construir @Large y mejorarla, pero eso se hace pensando positivo y
comprendiendo que un reinicio no es siempre perfecto. Tampoco es bueno
cuestionar la organización, y a todos sus miembros, por que hay personas que
han fallado en el pasado. Es como decir que la Democracia es mala por que
quienes la intentaron implementar fracasaron o se encariñaron con el poder y
establecieron una dictadura poco tiempo después. Por que obsesionarnos con
un árbol podrido, nos puede hacer olvidar ver que detrás el bosque explota
de verdes y árboles sanos. Por favor comencemos a trabajar y buscar obtener
resultados que puedan ser mostrados a todos nosotros (los miembros).

--- Jeff say ---------------------------------------------
>Anything dealing with this organization that may effect the members
>must be discussed in the open and not  behind the scenes so to speak
>as doing the latter lead to increasing distrust and breads dishonesty.


--- Mauro answer --------------------------------------
Apologize, but this is a representation system, the Panel each one of the
topics it cannot discuss with ALL the members. If you believe this way it, I
imagine that you participate of the parliament in your country and you vote
all the topics, and of course, the legislators invite you in each occasion
(they invite to the whole town). If it is sought to apply a direct
democracy, let us suspend the Panel and we believe beautiful discussion
forums and an on-line mass system of votes.

But care, topics that CANNOT BE decided by a Panel, exist like in anyone of
the democratic systems, there are things that the government's people cannot
decide alone, they establish this way it the laws, in our case it will
establish it the statutes (statutes that don't exist and it is urgent to
make).

And to act in a representative way is not in no way to work behind the wall
or to hide anything to the members, it is a modality based in the practical
facts, in an administrative coherence that otherwise would be impossible to
process.
.................
[ES] Disculpame, pero esto es un sistema de representación, el Panel no
puede discutir cada uno de los tópicos con TODOS los miembros. Si así lo
crees, imagino que tu participas del parlamento en tu país y votas todos los
tópicos, y por supuesto, los legisladores te invitan en cada ocasión
(invitan a todo el pueblo). Si se pretende aplicar un democracia directa,
suspendamos el Panel y creemos hermosos foros de discusión y un sistema de
votos on-line masivo.

Pero cuidado, existen tópicos que NO pueden ser decididos por un Panel, como
en cualquiera de los sistemas democráticos, hay cosas que las personas del
gobierno no pueden decidir solas, así lo establecen las leyes, en nuestro
caso lo deberá establecer los estatutos (estatutos que no existen y es
urgente hacer).

Y actuar de forma representativa No es de ninguna manera trabajar detrás de
la pared u ocultar nada a los miembros, es un modalidad fundamentada en los
hechos prácticos, en una coherencia administrativa que de otra manera sería
imposible de procesar.

--- Jeff say ---------------------------------------------
>I along with a number of other folks built my company from the
>outside in.  INEGroup was also built from the outside in as well.
>I can give you a number of other examples, but such such
>should be sufficient...

--- Mauro answer --------------------------------------
I believe that you didn't understand. The companies you to create from
inside, that is to say, belonging to them, participating in them, but this
way of belonging so that it is effective it should be constructive and
coherent. One cannot say that a Club doesn't exist and me to attend the
meetings of that club that I say that it doesn't exist. I cannot say that I
hate the chocolate and in the afternoons to enjoy a cup full with chocolate.
If @Large is nothing else that an illegitimate group of people that they
don't represent anybody that they don't govern anybody, etc.. For what
reason do I continue participating?, do I simply retire and do I invite the
members "deceived" to that follow me to create a legitimate @Large.

Why do I stay? For that I like the name of DNS and would I like to have it
for Me new @Large?, why none of the supposed deceived members does think as
me and do I continue trying to convince them? For that many members in
silence admitted me that they think the same thing that me but don't they
mean it?.
...........................
[ES] Creo que no entendiste. Las empresas se crear desde adentro, es decir,
perteneciendo a ellas, participando en ellas, pero esta manera de pertenecer
para que sea efectiva debe ser constructiva y coherente. No se puede decir
que un Club no existe y yo asistir a las reuniones de ese club que yo digo
que no existe. No puedo decir que odio el chocolate y en las tardes
disfrutar de una taza llena de chocolate. Si @Large es nada más que un grupo
ilegítimo de personas, que no representan a nadie, que no gobiernan a nadie,
etcétera. ¿Para qué sigo participando?, simplemente me retiro e invito a los
miembros "engañados" a que me sigan para crear una @Large legítima.

¿Por qué me quedo?, ¿Por que me gusta el nombre de DNS y me gustaría tenerlo
para Mí nueva @Large?, ¿Por qué ninguno de los supuestos miembros engañados
piensa como yo y sigo tratando de convencerlos?, ¿Por que muchos miembros en
silencio me confesaron que piensan lo mismo que yo pero no quieren decirlo?.

========================
With this e-mail, at least I, give had finished the topic for that, like
says the proverb: "a lot of noise and few nuts". I Believe that @Large
already dedicated enough attention to the rumors and supposed accusations
that doesn't have support in the mass of members and neither in the supposed
fiscal organisms that are observing @Large. It is the moment to begin to
produce results. That if they ended up falling other stones, it should be
analyzed in their moment.

[ES] Con este e-mail, al menos yo, doy por terminado el tema, por que, como
dice el refran: "mucho  ruido y pocas nueces". Creo que @Large ya le dedicó
suficiente atención a los rumores y supuestas acusaciones que NO tiene apoyo
en la masa de miembros y tampoco en los supuestos organismos fiscales que
están observando a @Large. Es el momento de comenzar a producir resultados.
Que si llegaran a caer otras piedras, se debería analizar en su momento.


cordialmente,
Mauro.-


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