[PLUG] Conclusion to PDXLUG argument

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Wed Jan 21 01:43:02 UTC 2004


On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Cliff Wells wrote:
> Well, the fact of the matter is that certain parties are using their
> status in the group as leverage in gaining business for their firm(s).
> I personally don't find much wrong with that aspect of it, and in fact
> consider it fairly reasonable.  People often use membership in clubs as
> a reference.

Good.  That was going to be my first point when I got home.

> However, much of the concern over the name of PDXLUG arises from a fear
> that confusion among potential *customers* might arise, *not* potential
> LUG users as has been so vehemently claimed.

I think some of the people who do get commercial contacts through their
association with PLUG are concerned about continuing those contacts with
the confusion, but there are plenty of us that have no business interest
in PLUG that are just as concerned about the confusion and how this whole
mess is making all of us look.

> Further, I find it repulsive that these persons would manipulate others
> into doing their dirty work under the guise of protecting the community
> when really all they are doing is protecting their income.

Again, just because some people are concerned about business contacts
getting confused doesn't mean that's the only reason to try and avoid
confusion.


I'm also going to go ahead and point out here that a DBA has
non-commercial purposes.  A DBA is simply a registered legal entity that
is not a person.  A DBA allows, for example, items to be granted or loaned
to PLUG without being granted or loaned to a particular individual.

So, the existence of a DBA does not imply that a person is doing
_commercial_ business as PLUG, just public business.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG mailing list