Dear Ian, <snip>
> Ah. I was wondering about that. So, when I > (or was it Alice? Bob? Carol? It's too late > for these games...) sue you, which court was it > that you preferred for this process? We prefer not to be subject to any court, since the only thing the GDCA does is write stuff on a web page. <snip> > If you accept the Panamanian court - which I > believe you *did* say - then I'd expect that > the *presumption* would be for Panamanian > code. Which brings up the interesting question > of whether you could select common law in a > civil law court? Or whether you could select > civil law in a common law court? > > Fascinating... the mind spins... I have little knowledge of Panamanian law. > > Our goal is to have the GDCA be a "cyber" jurisdiction. > > Ah. So you want to set up a kangaroo court. I would imaging Kangaroo courts belong in Australia. Panama would have the giant tree sloth courts. The GDCA has a court whose functions are outlined in the publicly available constitution. Incorporation in Panama was for one reason only, and that is to have papers available for those, like you, who cannot seem to bend their mind to the prospect of having ideas that belong to no jurisdiction, except to the individual mind, in cyberspace. Panama is irrelevant. Government jurisdiction is irrelevant. If any government should interfere with the GDCA government, then the GDCA will be hosted on the anonymous freenet, and meetings held on invisible IRC. I have long since abandoned the notion of allowing the fruits of my mind, my peaceful ideas, to belong to governments, if I can help it. > OK. Well, as I see it, you have two options, > being mediation, of the non-binding variety, > and arbitration, of the binding variety. Then you lack vision. Free your mind. > But none of that has any bearing on a suit. > When you are sued, it is in the courts and > laws of the land, not the whims and whimsies > of the mind. I believe that the whims and whimsies of the mind are 100 fold more powerful than the courts and laws of any particular land. > > We will > > neither sue, nor be sued (hopefully). We rely on freedom of > > speech on the internet and freedom of association. > > Words. Expressions of ideas... You are entertaining disputing parties, > and you expect your words to stop some disgruntled > loser from suing? Not at all. Anyone can sue. I have no intentions of stopping them. There's at least 2 issuers out > there that have threatened suits on a routine > basis. One at least has carried through and filed. > Do you think that your politics and beliefs will > save you from being sued? Absolutely not. > The only thing that will save you from being sued > is the depth of your members' pockets. IMHO. I do not need to be saved from being sued. <snip> > I see. So someone who has been labelled as chlorinated > is obviously a cheater of customers. Yes, you are > right, scary :-) No one is simply listed as such. There is a public procedure that takes place, with more than simply one or two people involved, before such a determination can be made. This determination, and the facts leading to it, are all publicly available, with opportunities for appeal. Therefore, it is scary only to fraudsters and scammers. <snip> > Okay, thanks for the manual on how to get off the > clorinated list :-) Are you saying that the death > threats were successful in the intent? No. I don't > mean, that you're now dead, but that the Florida > EP is now no longer on your lists! It is listed. Our goal is to list every business that accepts e-currencies. <snip> The threat of swift justice from the > GDCA, I > > believe, in no small part influenced the e-currency to do > the > > right thing. > > I despair to think there is an Issuer of e-currency > that would pull such a dastardly trick. There are many e-currencies out there that pull all sorts of tricks, all the more reason for the existence of the Global Digital Currencies Association. Did the > investigative/auditing committee ruling get filed > and delivered to the parties, and the judgement was > met? I believe that the threat of such a ruling influenced the outcome, and the e-currency decided to follow its own terms of service and hand over funds. <snip> > OK. Well, let's skip all the constitutional > stuff that derives from the US of A, and Bush > and habeus porpoise and whatever all that is... Even thought the constitution is the most relevant part of the GDCA? Ok. I'll play. > and get to the real question. If it wasn't > you, and it wasn't the honourable Jim D, in > charge of upholding the constitution, how > would you imagine an insider deciding to > pervert your intention? There are no such insiders. And if we are speaking of another organization with perverted intentions, then I really can't speak about it because I am not part of it. But I'll play your game... It's fun and, I think, valuable. > That is, say it was the evil Iang, who somehow > had fiddled the ballot with a pernicious backdoor, > and stolen the Presidency. The President is appointed by the shareholders, not voted upon. Further, I defy you to find even one instance of the word, "vote," in the constitution of the GDCA. So let's assume that you were hired by the shareholders. My girlfriend, of > course, always willing to do my bidding, is Alice, > and she is appointed as the committee for politically > correct and economically advantageous investigations > and auditing of all disputes. [snip] > Well, of course she agrees with me that the > complaint that my brother Bob brought against > your business is of the highest merit. (She'd > better, if she knows what's good for her.) > > And, I agree there is no conflict of interest. > > What else is there to discuss? Oh, the minor > part about your paying the arbitration award? What about the A/I Committe that investigates the complaint? That will consist of more than one or two people. You will have to send your girlfriend to sleep with all of them as well in order to bring your diabolical plan into fruition. Otherwise, the A/I Committee will raise an alarm... The GDCA will come into disrepute, and it will be hampered in carrying out its functions if it does not follow its own constitution. > So, we have potentially a conspiracy of two > parties, who can deliver an arbitration ruling. False. It would take a conspiracy of many parties. Perhaps thousands of parties, as the facts of the case are displayed publicly, for the public's consumption and review. > (Which of the two parties delivers the ruling > is someone up in the air at the moment, but no > doubt we can fudge that.) > > How do we deal with that? We don't. It can't happen, as explained above. Like the U.S. constitution, there are checks and balances in place. No one person has absolute power under the constitution. > > <snip> > My dear Ragnar, if you wish to flatter me with > attribution for your suggestions, do it with > coin. At least I can bite on that. I meant to say that your criticism inspired the idea. <snip> > > ... I think we are after the same goals, the > > betterment of the digital currency economy, even if we > differ in > > our approach somewhat. > > Indeed! Cool! > > <snip> If there is a merchant that is ripping off customers, > the > > GDCA must be able to arbitrate disputes (follow up on > > complaints), and issue rulings. > > Excuse me? You want to bare your teeth, but you > wish to display them non-coercively? If judiciously acquired rankings are coercive in your opinion, then so be it. I'm under the impression that coersion is about force or fraud. > Either you want "binding" or you don't. Either > you carry a stick, or you carry a feather. Unless > you mean that the GDCA "binding" is strictly limited > to the voluntary agreement to accept points reductions, > and internal fines. [snip] > I think I mentioned that the GDCA had not quite > made up its mind on this issue... It still fails > to impress with its consistency. Either you wish > to issue arbitration rulings and have them stick, > bind, as it were, or you don't. We do. But we do not enlist the help of governments to enforce the GDCA's rulings. We simply have a ranking system. And unlike other opinion or ranking websites one may find, our rank is based on strict constitutional guidelines, and transparency. > Binding arbitration is coercive. It's a great > tool for a financially oriented settlement > procedure, if you ... think in those terms. So, > it may be a great choice for you. I think I need to know your definition of coercive. What is it? > But make no mistake. By selecting arbitration, > you will not be able to drive around in combi > buses painted with flowers, strumming guitars > and singing "war is over..." I have stated, at the outset, to unbelieving ears, that the GDCA will be, to some degree, politically charged. > Perhaps I should put it another way. Recall those > OSGold dirtbags? Do you think they would be scared > of your non-coercive "binding arbitration" that > fined them some points and months later deliberated > and chlorinated their terrible plans to ... rip off > everyone? I believe that, potentially, hundreds of thousands, or even millions could have been saved if, by sounding the alarm early, the GDCA would have placed OSGold into Chlorine... Many people sounded the alarm on various lists but there was no organization, such as the GDCA with GDCA members with GDCA logos all over the place, to make consumers realize that they were being defrauded. Also, once the first complaints of non-payment started coming in, thousands of people were as yet oblivious to the problems. The existence of the GDCA back then would have saved many people much grief, IMHO. <snip> > > > But, for the moment, where it seems you want the > > > DGCA to be is in non-binding mediation. > > > > That's incorrect. It must be binding, or it is a waste of > time. > > Then read the Arbitration Act of your country. > At the very least, read it before someone else > does. We have our own act. Our own rules. <snip> > In this case, however, the details appear .. un- > thought out. Your decision to *offer* arbitration > is based on ... what? The GDCA's constitution. The constitution, and its application by the officers and committees is the essence of the GDCA. When you offer it to the > members, on what do they rest their assurance? On the constitution and the reputation of the GDCA. > You have to think out the details. Always true, and your help is appreciated. > > Based on the applications for membership that are coming in, > it > > seems to me that people are inspired by the promise of the > GDCA > > and are confident of its ability to carry out those > purposes. > > LOL... What did Groucho Marx have to say about > memberships? Groucho Marx did not envision the GDCA, and I'm sure Groucho Marx would not be interested in my opinion about him either. <snip> > It is clear that the need is there. You may be > the man (or men, or men and women....) to fill it. With time, the GDCA will be indispensable for consumers in the e-currency arena. I believe JP will soon offer to buy our shares (hopefully, he has got this far into this e-mail). :) > Mind you, I can't help thinking by constructing > the system as you wish it to operate in x years > time, you will have loaded it up well beyond its > early pre-toddler bearing limit. We will adjust where we deem best. > I'm beginning to think that what you want is > mediation. But, the GDCA wants the ability to > penalise based on the mediator's ruling. The > ruling may very well be voluntary. But the GDCA > wishes to levy fines, points etc, based on the > ruling. > > Otherwise, we are liable to be hung up and bound > on this "binding" part. Let's see what happens... > digest: send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with "set [EMAIL PROTECTED] digest=on" in the message > body ===== Regards, Ragnar Vice Pres. - GDCA - http://www.gdcaonline.org Vice Pres. - Gold Age - http://www.goldage.net editor - Liberty Impact - http://www.libertyimpact.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
