Post a response:
|
Other people have written misleading interpretations. Here is some clarification: By addy I mean registrant - for example, I am "Amicus" (with out the quotes). Providing a list of people you trust in this format, for example: ~ Subject: Amicus Content: 1) Promotheus, Santi, MWM 2) Promotheus, Santi, MWM ~ Is all that is asked, no reasons, or any other information is wanted. You can use an anonymous or specially made e-mail service if you like, it really doesn't matter - however we'd need to be able to contact you back, this opens the system to false ID's, however it is more important that ID's are gotten at all. The second question is not extraneous precisely because of the first (and it's bracketed qualifier), and visa versa. This does not compromise people (period). It was designed not to. Further, the interpretation of trying again hardly means we should try at random, rather it means where there is a reasonable chance of success, despite past (unrelated) losses. Finally, although the details are lacking, can't you concede they would have to be if they have any chance of succeeding, that a meta-analysis of your social interrelations in this simplistic manner (which I'm certainly asking you to provide me with - I'm not attempting to hide this, I've explained that much) is a sensible means to begin under this kind of irrationally paranoid atmosphere? ~Someone must stay rationale among the (ironic) hystericals~ If you do decide to participate, putting in a rational word on this board might be beneficial to those already deterred by others. Amicus |