Re[3]: [ga] Re: DNSO Constituency Structure

[William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>]

Thursday, Thursday, November 22, 2001, 7:19:43 PM, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> On 18:34 22/11/01 -0800, William X Walsh said:


>>My last motion in the IDNO was an
>>attempt to bridge the gap between the two factions, and it lost by ONE
>>SINGLE VOTE.  Joop makes it sound like those who oppose his elitist
>>view of the IDNO and how it should be run and what it should be doing
>>are only one or two vocal people, whom he slanders and tries to
>>discredit.  THE FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.

> The facts about that vote are here: www.idno.org/democinaction.htm
> Let the reader judge for himself what the truth is.
> That WXW is even less restrained on the idno-discuss list than he is here 
> only confirms that he's a royal pain  to any constituency that would 
> harbour him. :-(

The IDNO is not a constituency, Joop.   You have made sure of that, a
constituency wouldn't have someone pulling the strings from behind the
curtain, like you try and do with the IDNO when you were permitted to
get away with it.

The facts support everything I have said.  And they will now be
documented at a new website detailing them in an easy to read format,
with all the proper links to back them all up.  Links to the messages
in the archives that show the facts, EVERYTHING.

A new age has dawned, Joop.  Your lies and slanders will no longer be
humored and tolerated.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
--
Webcertificates.info
SSL Certificates for resellers from $49ea

--
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