[Imc-finance] is imc- finance "open to anyone"?

[toni --]

On Sat, 31 Aug 2002, Petros Evdokas wrote:

> Is imc- finance "open to anyone"?

of course it is. like any other working group,
as i already wrote (in the mail to which you linked), as you,
again, misunderstood.

unlike other working groups where participation can be passive,
here (as we wrote in the amendment) one needs to work to get
to participate in decision making. liasons, for example, can get that
right by the fact that their IMC's contribute to the network, and they can
be passive on this list, if they desire so.
 
> Thank you all for your interest in clarifying what
> exactly  our Membership status is, and what,
> essentially is the meaning of all the resolutions we
> adopted in the Spring of 2002.

my interest in clarifying has always been there, hence my two previous
invitations to you to debate the issue. your "thank you for you interest"
implies that i wasn't ready to do so before, which is simply not true.
stick to facts in future.
 
> Now, the most recent (Aug 30) letter from Toni (member
> of the London Working Group) seems to be implying a
> willingness to change the interpretation of our
> Membership concepts. 

simply not true (read above).
one thing that did change for sure is your tactic of a long standing
attempt to achieve something with aggresive and now manipulative
communication.

> Toni, thanks for the willingness to reverse, or at
> least to review, the London Working Group's policy

it's not a London Working Group policy, but imc-finance policy, based
partly on an amendment that we proposed, which was passed here.

i could have only reversed my views if i was convinced otherwise, by
arguments provided, in a debate. debate that you rejected (as you still
do). and your 'polite', but manipulative rhetoric is no better then
previous rejections.

if you want to debate the current imc-finance policy, any time.
but spare me of emails like this one in future, please.

regards,

toni