[ga-full] Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

[DillonM0081@aol.com]

Roberto,

  This looks like allot of babble double talk to me Roberto.
But like most of what I have thus far read from you is babble
anyway.  It is sure true that you don't like dissenters or people
that disagree with you.  I do on the other hand as that is how we
all learn and expand our horizons.  Pity you don't.

Dillon Marshall Esq.



In a message dated 2/15/00 2:46:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
roberto.gaetano@voila.fr writes:

<< Harald wrote:
 >
 >Because the rules that were adopted say that the proof of identity 
 process 
 >is only invoked when an identity is challenged, and the list monitor is
  
 >satisfied that there's reason to pursue the challenge.
 >
 
 There's also another reason to limit the check to the challenged cases.
 
 We will have to move, for a number of reasons, to a situation in which 
 "Membership" is a concept distinct from "Mailing-List-Subscriber", and 
 in which there will be *many* mailing lists, with specific focus.
 At that point in time, it will seem reasonable to check the identity for
  "Members" (the more 'stable' population, that will have the right of 
 vote, ....), and this may be done once and for good, while the 'mobile' 
 population (the people subscribing to a general-purpose mailing list) 
 will necessarily not be subject to systematic control (too expansive).
 
 Regards
 Roberto >>
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html