[ga-abuse] Re: Request for clarification to:Re: [Admin] Challenge of identity
Harald, Jeff is indisposed presently with a family emergency. So I will attempt to try to address your response here if I can. Please read below your comments for further information. Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote: > Jeff, you are not terribly interesting. > Please read the rules under which the challenge is made. > > At 05:42 12.02.00 -0800, Jeff Williams wrote: > >Harald and all, > > > >What is the basis for this claim to be creditable? > > Let's see what the indications are: > > - All the persons allege membership in "INEGroup", which nobody has ever > seen any other proof of the existence of > - All the persons run to long-winded sentences with bad grammar > - All the persons agree perfectly on every matter of substance > - None of the persons show any self-restraint when posting to the list, > either in number of postings or in the tone of voice used In e-mail no "Voice" is used to my knowledge. If you have voice e-mail than a pre designated voice is generated I believe, or you have a player that can play the appropriate "Type" of file. We do have Voice E-mail but it translates into text as an interface with Netscape E-Mailer and Microsoft Mail. So I am very confused as to how a "Voice" is relevant here. Where is the "Rule" posted where "Self Restraint" identified and defined? I have not seen it. As a member of INEGroup we are very much in agreement in our positions though at times we have verying ways of expressing it. So to a degree I am somewhat dismayed that you state we agree "Perfectly" on every matter. I will say again and in a different way, yes we are all in agreement on every matter that Jeff, our spokesman which we allow allot of latitude to express for us. That is whey he is our designated "Spokesman" Harald. Yes, occasionally I, or Bob do respond to some posts in our own way and use our own terms to do so. That is clear in the archives. Roeland knows Jeff, though they have never physically met. I have never met you or Roeland or any of the participants on the DNSO GA list, just as many or even most of the DNSO GA participants have not. That is why the Berkman center and ICANN have electronic participation. Jeff did meet and talk over the phone with the original registrant of e.com however. You might check with him. In fact he lives near Jeff and I. Jeff has also met with several detectives of the FBI here in Dallas in the past as well. You might also check with them in the Dallas office. I do not know nor have met with vast majority or our members either. But this is not unusual in the cyber world of various organizations as you well know. So this is as I believe, not unusual either. So I guess I am not sure as to what you are getting at or wanting here. ??? As to long-winded posts and bad grammar in them. Yes sometimes grammar errors are made, this is been true of almost everyone at one time of another. But to say that ALL my, Jeff's or Bob's being both long-winded and contain bad grammar, here are a few examples that would be contrary to your assertion: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00296.html This one was a reply to Roberto where Roberto's post was much longer winded than Jeff's for instance. http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00624.html This one was a response to Joe Baptista regarding your proposed List rules that I made. Quite short. I hope this has addressed point by point you first set of concerns in a constructive and reasonable way. > > > There's more, but this will suffice for now. > > >Who is making this claim? > >On what grounds? And where is the evidence for this claim? > > William X. Walsh made the challenge. > I as the list monitor decided to press it. Thank you for informing me, I am sure that you realize that considering the source this is circumspect at best. Are you aware of his nefarious other activities dating back to 1998 at least? If you like I will pass them on for your review. Given William Walsh as the source whom has had a long standing feud with Jeff and INEGroup I think you can see plainly that this is just an attempt to silence Jeff, and our members unjustly and unfairly. I hope that you will give this fact the reasonable consideration it strongly and justly deserves. You also know that in the past the DNSO List admin kick William off of the DNSO GA list for his behavior as well, aren't you? > > > > What is this > >person or persons identity? Can he or she prove their identity? Have > >they or even you proven your identity to everyone on the DNSO GA > >list? To my knowledge you have not. Why are James Touton > >and Bob Davis being singled out? Is it reasonable to do so? > >If so what are the justifications? > > See above. > > > What are the forms of identity you are requesting? > > See previous message. Alternate suggestions for proof are appreciated. You may find me on whowhere if you wish as well I aI have singed this post with my temp digital ID. > > > > Is everyone else > >required to provide this or any forms of identification that are on this list? > > No, just the ones that are challenged, and where the list monitor finds the > challenge credible. I see. So where is this in the list rules and where is this posted on the DNSO Web site? And was or is there a mandate for the rules in the first place? > > > >If not, why not, given that YOU and this mystery person (Joe Kelsey or Ken > >Stubs?) > >are making this request? How do you justify this? > > See above. > > > If I do not receive answers that are substantial I shall copy this to > >the DOJ per their request, and every member of this list. You have > >7 days to comply before this action is taken. If these reasonable > >questions are not answered in advance of your request for info. > >and the 7 days expire, the next step may be necessary. If you protest > >this request, please let me know what the nature in detail of your protest > >is and it shall receive independent and blind review by an unknown to > >me or you, third party. I hope you find this satisfactory. > > Not at all. This is unfortunate. I am very sad to hear this. > > > I requested that you prove to my satisfaction that you, Bob Davis and Jim > Touton are distinct persons. As I am answering for Jeff here for the reasons I indicated above, I am signing this post. And again you may call our main number and ask for security. (972-447-1894) ask for security or personnel If it is a weekend day that you call leave a message and indicate whom you wish to return your call (Security or personnel) and a contact number where you can be contacted and they will call you within a 24 hours of your message. > > If you decline to comply with that request, I will cause Bob Davis and Jim > Touton to be denied posting rights to the GA list. This would be unfortunate. There are always alternatives, many of them. Some are not very nice. I am sure that you would not enjoy them. I can with this post get an injunction in the 5th district court if necessary for instance without you even being here as you are not an american or do not reside in the US. I will receive a judgment in 7 days following that injunction. I would very much dislike doing that for several reasons. I will be forwarding this post today directly to the judge I have delt with before on these sorts of matters and have forwarded several other or your and Roberto's posts in the past several weeks. Several press people have expressed a great interest in much of this as well. I don't think these amongst other actions serves either or our interests. Do you? > > > Do you accept or decline the request for proof of identity? > > Harald Tveit Alvestrand > List monitor, GA list > -- > Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway > Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no James Touton Legal and Policy Advisory Council, INEGRoup (Stakeholder) S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
|