Re: [ga-ext] Re: [ga] The IC constituency building results so far [was: stuff]
At 14:05 10/05/01 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> I'm not a member of the IDNO, but you all want to shoot it down citing vague
>> reasons, without ever stating the actual reasons. Educate me.
>Chris, the reasons are available to you. You can easily find them
This is called the "do your homework" or the "JW" argument.
It is not easy to find your way in megabytes of archived postings and the burden of proof rests on the accuser.
>The entire reason I issued the warning I did in that message is
>because it also doesn't serve the best interests of getting a domain
>holders constituency to rehash that history on a public list at this
>point, provided that the entire IDNO issue remains where it belongs,
>in the past.
Warning? Who brings up the accusation whenever the word IDNO is mentioned?
What is this warning? A transparent attempt to get away with accusations without the need to prove them?
Chris is right, a great deal of work has been done to get a constituency self-organized.
Why must it be killed?
There are many members who know nothing of WXW's campaign to stop it dead. They don't read the GA list, or Idno-discuss for that matter.
They just ask to be represented and they have chosen the IDNO as their vehicle.
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of The Polling Booth