At 03:27 PM 7/18/99 -0700, you wrote: >Sunday, July 18, 1999, 8:54:33 AM, Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> In any event my position, now, is that IDNO does not represent the stated >> constituency and has much too flawed a history to justify its being selected. > >In other words, since the INDO will not explicitly support the CORE agenda, it >should not be recognized. At least they didn't have to change the bylaws this time... -- Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose Mark C. Langston
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- Re: Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose A Gehring
- Re: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose A Gehring
- Re[2]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose William X. Walsh
- RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose Richard J. Sexton
- RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Why fail on purpose R . Gaetano
