|
Grex > Coop11 > #254: Grex's ID policy - email with account usgov |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 21 new of 133 responses total. |
swa
|
|
response 113 of 133:
| 
Apr 19 03:57 UTC 2001 |
And I'd always taken "heathen" to mean something more akin to "heretic"
than to "pagan." For what that's worth.
|
robh
|
|
response 114 of 133:
|
Apr 19 04:46 UTC 2001 |
Re 113 - "Heathen" means "someone who lives in the heath",
aka a rural dweller, and originally had the same implications
of low intelligence and culture that we moderns associate
with the words "hick" or "redneck". "Pagan" comes from the
Latin "paganus" meaning "man with a beard", and in the days
when the clean-shaven look was popular in the city, had the
same connotations as "heathen".
"Heretic" originally referred to someone whose interpretation
of Catholic doctrine was different from the "official" interpretation
of the Pope.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 115 of 133:
|
Apr 19 07:05 UTC 2001 |
Re #110: did msgov imply somewhere that he is the resident agent for PE&S?
We know who the resident agent is. If we were playing 20 questions, I
would guess that usgov is the son of the resident agent... 8^}
cmcgee moved to "reaffirm our current policy". That of course is not in
order, since current policy IS current policy, and so the motion is
redudant. Acting on such a motion would, in fact, set a precedent for NOT
considering other current policies as current enough.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 116 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:09 UTC 2001 |
s/redundant/redudant
|
flem
|
|
response 117 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:26 UTC 2001 |
Hmm. I'd assumed he claimed to be the RA because 1) he seems to be claiming
to speak for the company, and 2) the name given is "Rick", which ISTR matches
the first name of the RA. But I've not investigated either of those vague
memories. :)
|
aruba
|
|
response 118 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:38 UTC 2001 |
No, I don't believe anyone has claimed to be the registered agent for
Property Exchange & Sales, Inc.
|
flem
|
|
response 119 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:51 UTC 2001 |
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
|
scg
|
|
response 120 of 133:
|
Apr 19 17:56 UTC 2001 |
Not that it's the least bit relevant here, but to what extent does a
"registered agent" speak for a company. I notice that the Delaware state
government website features a list of companies that will be your
corporation's resident agent, if you want to incorporate in Delaware (a
state where incorporation seems to be the main industry). If we're looking
for somebody to speak for a corporation it would be much better to look for
a corporate officer (and even then, in some companies, purchasing authority
gets delegated down farther).
But anyhow, I really don't think it's any of Grex's business to speculate on
the structure or motives of this company. As far as we know, it's a company
trying to make a donation to Grex, and trying to get a membership in
recognition of that. The notion that they must want something along with
their membership which we can't deliver, because otherwise they wouldn't want
a membership, seems unfounded at best. Why are any of the rest of us members?
The current policies are pretty clear on what they allow and don't allow, so
the only real question is whether those policies are reasonable.
|
mdw
|
|
response 121 of 133:
|
Apr 19 18:28 UTC 2001 |
I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the whole concept of "resident
agent" varies widely from state to state. Nevada and Delaware had the
most lenient requirements to incorporate - non-residents can
incorporate. If there's a need for a resident agent in either state,
then it would make sense for some individuals in both states to
specialize in offering "resident agent" services (presumably for a fee.)
No doubt the rules are even stranger in other countries - I understand
it's much more expensive for a non-profit to incorporate in Canada for
instance.
|
keesan
|
|
response 122 of 133:
|
Apr 19 18:44 UTC 2001 |
I have been complaining to abuse@*.* about spam from their account holders,
and two of them wrote back promising to stop this from happening again. Does
grex have a policy of terminating the membership of any member who uses grex
to send spam? Is there some way to tell that someone is sending spam, other
than from recipients' complaints? I ran across one little e-mail add-on that
would put all mail with bcc: (blind carbon copy) into a special folder for
you so it could easily be deleted, and just display the subject line.
|
aruba
|
|
response 123 of 133:
|
Apr 20 00:32 UTC 2001 |
The board felt last night that it was time to send the check back, so I have
done so. I also sent this email:
There was consensus at the board meeting last night that it's time to return
your check, so I will mail it today. As you realize, our policies do not
permit us to offer you membership without proper identification, nor can we
offer a corporation a voting membership, as you requested in your letter.
We certainly appreciate your desire to support Grex. We also appreciate
that you brought out some discussion about our ID policies. It is good to
examine our assumptions occasionally. You are of course welcome to keep
discussing the issues in our coop conference, and to participate in any
other discussions on Grex. We always welcome opposing viewpoints.
I hope in the future we can find a way for you to support us that is
acceptable to everyone.
|
mdw
|
|
response 124 of 133:
|
Apr 20 02:42 UTC 2001 |
Grex *members* rarely if ever send spam. Occasionally, grex *users* who
are non-members send spam. If detected in time, staff will kill
whatever process or script is sending spam, and disable the account.
It's then up to the user to contact staff and demonstrate a convincing
amount of regret and wont-do-it-again-ness before the account gets
turned back on. Often, people who do this create "junk" accounts
specifically for the purpose. In some cases, staff can identify a
"real" account associated with the same person, in which case that
account gets disabled as well. Generally, even grex users don't tend to
send UCE - usually in these cases it's a "mail bombing" denial of
service attack against one individual.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 125 of 133:
|
Apr 20 06:27 UTC 2001 |
A Michigan Resident Agent is the person required to be named, with
address, for the delivery of any official communications from the
State. The RA is not otherwise an officer of the corporation, or
can speak officially for the corporation (unless also delegated to
do so).
|
aruba
|
|
response 126 of 133:
|
Apr 20 13:41 UTC 2001 |
Happily, the new "Corporation Information Update" forms from the State of
Michigan also include a line for "mailing address", which can be a P.O. Box
number, as well as lines for the name and address of the resident agent.
The State acknowledged the last forms we submitted by sending mail to the
P.O. Box instead of to my house, for which I am thankful.
|
keesan
|
|
response 127 of 133:
|
Apr 20 15:02 UTC 2001 |
How does grex distinguish between true spam and something like the Kiwanis
newsletter, which we were sending out once a week to 100 people with bcc:?
The spam that I get tends to be html (the newsletter was ascii).
|
jep
|
|
response 128 of 133:
|
Apr 20 15:50 UTC 2001 |
re #123: What an excellent job of non-confrontational communication.
That's how it ought to be done.
|
carson
|
|
response 129 of 133:
|
Apr 20 15:57 UTC 2001 |
(that's just one of the reasons we keep Mark around.) :^)
|
aruba
|
|
response 130 of 133:
|
Apr 20 16:46 UTC 2001 |
Thanks guys. I had some help from people at the board meeting.
|
jep
|
|
response 131 of 133:
|
Apr 21 03:47 UTC 2001 |
I would say some people at the Board meeting had some help from you.
(-:
|
davel
|
|
response 132 of 133:
|
Apr 23 13:12 UTC 2001 |
Agreed that Mark's letter is exactly on target. Thanks, Mark.
|
aruba
|
|
response 133 of 133:
|
May 10 14:50 UTC 2001 |
My friend Ken, who is an English professor at Bates College, checked into
the Hamlet discrepancy for me. The Pelican edition I was quoting from is
based on the second or "good" quarto of 1604-05, "now usually regarded,
but without complete assurance, as printed from Shakespeare's own draft,"
according to the introduction. The second quarto does indeed contain the
line "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." The text Jamie was
quoting from is the First Folio, printed in 1623, "now usually regarded,
but again without complete assurance, as printed from the prompt-book of
Shakespeare's acting company or from the good quarto altered after
reference to such a prompt book." The First Folio contains the line "The
lady protests too much, methinks."
Ken points out that "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is iambic
pentameter, but the "The lady protests too much, methinks" doesn't have as
nice a meter.
|