Re: [ifwp] Re: Questions about Ira's deadline

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Sep 15, 1998 at 10:29:11PM +0100, Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 
>>>But I said "it was planned as an IFWP meeting".  It was.  I was there 
>>>when we planned it.  I said "people are going there to attend an IFWP
>>>meeting".  This is a description of what some people are doing.  
>> 
>> Jim, the meeting was cancelled. 
> 
> Dave.  I know.  I was one of the people who cancelled it.
>  
>>>The IFWP hasn't cancelled anything.  The steering committee cancelled
>> 
>> So the official announcement that came from the Steering Committee,
>> canceling the meeting, didn't really cancel the meeting?
> 
> The point is simple.  The steering committee is not the same as the 
> IFWP.  They are two different bodies.  The IFWP as such has not cancelled
> anything.
> 
>>>The "IFWP" has made no official announcement.  The steering committee,
>>>of which I am a member, cancelled the wrap-up meeting.  
>> 
>> You find that sort of "logic" credible?
> 
> Credible?  I am carefully and correctly distinguishing two logically
> distinct things.  Yes, it is credible.

Jim, the hair-splitting, tortured contortions of logic you are going
through here are truly painful to watch.  On Tuesday, September 8 you
wrote:

    "The steering committee has always in fact simply sanctioned
    meetings that someone else organized.  It has done this just by
    saying that it was OK to use the IFWP name."

According to YOU the Steering Committee has only one power -- the
power to sanction a meeting with the IFWP name.  That is, it is INDEED
the Steering Committee that decides what is "IFWP" and what is not.
And the SC has most definitely decided that there is not going to be 
an IFWP meeting in Boston next week.  Period.

And on Sunday, September 6 you wrote with considerable more
rationality than you are now exhibiting:

    "If you want legitimacy, you need the participation of large
    groups, not just a few dozen individuals.  You need participation
    from all over the world, not just the US and Canada.  You need
    participation from all sectors: from the Internet industry, from
    education, from government, from business, from user groups."

But for whatever strange reason you now think it is important that a
possible gathering in Boston of a tiny handful of people, representing
no one in particular, be blessed with the IFWP name -- a move more
likely to discredit the IFWP than anything else. 

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html