At 11:00 AM 4/3/00 -0700, you wrote:
>At 4/3/00 8:59 AM, sys@zanmai.com wrote:
>
>>What next? Some other reseller decides to not bother getting credit card
>>verification, then wants OpenSRS to help with inevitable fraud. The next
>>reseller forgoes client payment alltogether and lets the public at large
>>register 1000s of names "bill you later" status ... and wan't OpenSRS to
>>cover their loses when clients don't pay the bill?
>
>Hmmm. Remember this morning when I asked you to stop claiming people who
>wanted the policy changed were hoping to somehow get our money back,
>because that wasn't the case?
>
>Would it help you if I said it again? Perhaps if I capitalized it?
>
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
>
>What if I repeated it?
>
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
>WE'RE NOT ASKING OPENSRS TO COVER OUR LOSSES.
Then we are in agreement that there is no point whatsoever in
asking OpenSRS to change a policy when such change will
have ZERO benifit to them or to the Resellers.
>
>We're asking OpenSRS to give us control of something that's stolen from
>us. That's totally, absolutely different than asking OpenSRS to pay for
>it.
As said before, giving you "control" serves no legitimate purpose,
as it solves nothing, the "thefts" will still occur.
And the only reason something can be stolen" from you is because you
personally allow it to be stolen, via the deliberate and known risks you
chose to expose yourself to via your business model.
>It's also totally, absolutely different than hoping to get back the
>money that was stolen from us.
Then it doesn't address, solve, nor even mitigate the issue of "theft".
It's just a fabricated feel-good measure with no practical result.
>Now I've said it ten times. I realize that when you don't have a good
>argument it's easier to pretend I said something else and argue against
>that, but it's sort of a waste of everyone's time.
You claim to want to prevent or deter "theft and theives" yet your proposed
"solution" does neither.
Cheers,
Eric Ross
QuickNames.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:35:28 EDT