William X. Walsh a écrit:
>
> This sounds so ominous Michael :)
>
> To my knowledge this meeting was NOT arranged by ORSC, and Stef merely inquired
> (publicly on the list I might mention) that Jay represent ORSC at this meeting
> if possible.
>
> As to the specifics of the meeting, and who set it up, those details have not
> been published publicly to my knowledge, but I would be pretty certain it was
> NOT ORSC.
>
> Makes perfect sense for ORSC, and for any organization electing to be
> represented, to make sure they crash these closed meetings if at all possible,
> to force them to be open, despite any plans otherwise. I would imagine that
> was the goal in publishing the request for an ORSC rep to be there in the first
> place, to make the details public.
Oh, so it's just fine when the ORSC accepts invitations to closed, exclusive
meetings, in order to "force them to be open"? There's only one way to force
them to be open: demand that everyone who wants to attend can go, and refuse
to participate if they aren't.
The ORSC is participating in a closed meeting. Neither myself, the DNRC,
Milton Mueller, Tom Lowenhaupt, nor anyone else opposing the INTA or the
business/trademark cartels has been invited. The meeting hasn't been
publicly announced because the organizers and participants are ashamed of
what they're doing. That meeting is the real one; the one on the 22nd is the
window dressing, just like you accused the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list of being
window dressing, except this time it's for real.
You're a bunch of lousy hypocrites. Nothing more and nothing less.
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
