From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:58:35 -0400

On Jul 14, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

...

On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:34:18 -0500 William Pitcock <nenolod@systeminplace.net> wrote: On Sat, 2009-07-11 at 11:11 -0600, Brielle Bruns wrote:

...

...

On 7/11/09 11:05 AM, Ronald Cotoni wrote:

...

Yes, they are really bad. It is actually quite silly that a blacklisting service is that slow on responding to problems.

<snip>

Also, I believe SORBS are the ones that require a donation to get out if

A 'required donation' sounds like a ransom to me.

You make the donation to a "registered charity", not to SORBS. Michelle never sees a dime, nor does anyone else associated with SORBS.

Note: the -only- thing the charitable donation 'buys' is "expedited processing" of the removal request. If the "problem" still exists, then the listing is not removed. It's not like you can 'buy your way off' the list.

You can still call it a ransom if you like, I won't even argue, but in fairness I thought it was useful to make that distinction.

'Ransom' is _not_ an accurate description. Among other things it implies that the ransomer has possession of your property and you are paying for it's safe return. The 'best-fit' technical term would be 'extortion' -- SORBS operator _has_ consulted professional counsel on the matter, and has reason to believe that the exact form of what they do _is_ within the law. (I've had direct conversations with Michelle on that specific point -- it's 'closer to the line' than _I_ would care to operate. :) I mention that strictly from the standpoint that those who use descriptive terms which carry an implication of 0 action are _themselves_ likely crossing the line as regards libel/slander/defamation. Lastly, I'm going to suggest that this is drifting rather afar OT from the charter of the group, and suggest that the MLM may want to put the kibosh on this thread.