RE: [ga] Business Constituency

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

So, the Business Constituency is taking a constitutional?

|> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:philip.sheppard@aim.be]
|> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 2:23 AM
|> 
|> 
|> The Business Constituency has launched an internal 
|> debate to revise its charter. To give due respect 
|> to the participation of BC members in this debate, 
|> the Constituency will not be replying to discussion 
|> on this matter outside of the Constituency at this point.

I must agree with WXW. This is incredibly stupid. If you want to blow both
of your own feet off, with the nearest 12-guage, all the rest of us can do
is sit around and watch. But, don't you think that it's a bit messy?

It's no secret, what I think about the way the BC is set up. You guys give
businesses a bad name. If anything, y'all should be considering opening
things up, not shutting them down, IMHO. Be that as it may, you don't
deserve your name, it may better be called the "elitist constituency", or
the "country club snob constituency". Better yet, the "snobs with big ideas
and small wallets bunch". A bigger bunch of snobs then it has ever been my
displeasure to know. Y'all have NOTHING to do with business and everything
to do with elitism and self agrandisement, in the name of the internet
world's businesses.

BTW, I do believe that the telcos and ISPs of the world should form a
Telecommunications Constituency, provided that you can find any of them that
still has two dimes to rub together. Then we can have a business
constituency whose only requirement is that the business be a registered
legal business entity. But no, that would be too proletarian for y'all,
wouldn't it?
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html