>
>In any case, it is interesting to watch you support Roeland in his
>fanciful discussion of creating yet another fake organization to gain
>representation.
Kent, please stop jumping to such conclusions. When you do, you only
make yourself look bad. I was not supporting ANYONE, I was merely
passing information along and participating in a discussion on its
merits. For your information, the requirements I laid out, while they
may not be correct for the language of the proposed document, was what
2 who inquired about being a part of this organization were told. So
what is happening in practice might be a lot different than the theory
of what is on paper.
>Roeland's attempt to shoehorn in a commercial entity in disguise is
>just a little dishonest, don't you think?
I guess that depends on his intentions, which you would have NO way of
knowing. I think your coloring of both my comments and his in this
response of your is rather inappropriate, but it is the type of
conclusion jumping and criticism without merit that we have come to
expect from you.
>In any case, your discussion of this on the IDNO list is certainly
>off topic (though strangely, the list police have not said anything
>about it), so I won't continue this thread.
As a non-member fo the IDNO, I don't think it is your place to make
any such conclusion. But this is just another example of your
presuming to make conclusions for others.
-- William X. Walsh General Manager, DSo Internet Services Email: william@dso.net Fax:(209) 671-7934The Law is not your mommy or daddy to go crying to every time you have something to whimper about.