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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Mauro and all fellow members,

  I did not receive a message/post with any precursor or supposed
changed subject line indicating anything such as you suggest below:
"PERSONAL MAIL [atlarge-discuss] AFully it Activates
Panel..."

  In any event the message/post in question I did receive was sent
to me twice and hence using "Reply-all" and my automated Emailer
sent the response to the originating forum of
atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>

  Therefore perhaps a correction to the reply option for the
atlarge discuss list <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de> forum would
be an advisable thing to do to eliminate such dual posts to this
forum.

A/S Mauro D. Ríos wrote:

> 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.

  No turns that I can attest to. Perhaps your perception is one that
is of a spinning natural nature.  My subject discourse on this thread
has been a straight line.  Your construence is seemingly one that
seems to characterize what I stated/posted in a manner to which
it was not made or certainly not intended...

> Jeff, respect your point of view,
> but you would should to begin to respect the point of view of the other
> ones,

  "Other Ones"???  I do respect but may not agree with other perspectives
and as a member from the beginning and well versed in the many and
varied diatribe of policy discussions, debates, and considerations
dealing with organizational structure building especially with respect
to this fledgling organization, much longer and more diligently than
you have been as a relatively NEW member..

> 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.

  I have made NO accusations of any kind.  If you can show me just
one I would be obliged to acknowledge such.  Yes, I have made
a number of declarations with supporting documentation on a number
of occasions, and will likely do so again.  I see that a number of members
have responded in kind either directly or indirectly. Hence it appears
and now occurs to me that  you have been missing allot or not paying
very close attention to discourse of many posts/comments and/or
remarks made to this forum...

>
>
> 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.

  Well I am supportive strongly of a viable and ongoing legitimate
atlarge structure.  I also am a spokesman for another.  I have thrown
no stones as this if a mailing list forum and such an act is not possible,
hence suggesting as to your incoherence.  This fledgling organization
is not yet full fledged as well, hence I am finding it difficult to
understand how a connotation or label of "Her" could be considered
appropriate.  If and when we do have bylaws, articles of incorporation,
an charter as well as legitimately and duly elected officers, than
as would be appropriate the organization should be referred to as
"We" or "US", not a "Her" or ????

>
>
> 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.

  Again as I have said above, I received two copies of this post and NONE
were had the supposed changed subject line of "PERSONAL MAIL [atlarge-discuss]
AFully it Activates Panel..."  as you indicated.

>  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.

  Great!

>
>
> .............................
> [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.-

Regards,

--
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



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