In message <000601be9c10$dba84380$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John B. Reynolds
" writes:
>
>
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > Could the members of this list please address the questions themselves,
> > rather than the questioner?
>
> Kent Crispin has already done so with respect to ISOC.
Nonsense, the K*nt has just blabbered his typical nonsense (rating an
8 on the K*nt Meter (tm)) while whiling away his idle hours as a
backup tape exchanger as his oh so secret research facility,
> > If you ask wether ISOC isn't more "qualified" than the ICIIU to organize
> > the non-commercial constituency, shouldn't you also ask who is the more
> > disqualified of the two?
> >
>
> It is precisely the question of "who is the more disqualified" that
> prompts list members to debunk the "ICIIU".
Nothing of the kind.
> One has to question whether a one-person operation can be considered
> an "organization" in any real sense of the word, even if it does
> possess an easily obtainable Delaware incorporation.
Have you got any evidence for that allegation?
> By contrast, ISOC has a real membership composed primarily of real
> individuals.
You liar!
> ISOC's NCDNHC application would be acceptable if it were modified to provide
> for individual membership.
It cann not be accpeteable because ISOC is a lobbyist ogranisation for
corporate customers with a little bit of window dressing.
> It provides means for those who can not attend face to face meetings
> to participate without resorting to proxy voting, and defines
> "non-commercial" properly where organizations are concerned.
Indeed, they do not allow some of their members to vote on this. Thank
you for confirming this.
> On the other hand, Mr. Sondow's attempt to redefine the term to
> exclude ISOC without regard to his new definition's
> disenfranchisement of most charities, museums, and arts and cultural
> organizations serves to completely disqualify him as an organizer of
> non-commercial entities.
Is your glaucoma acting up again?
el
