Re: Rebuttal: Why IAPP is not for us.

[Mike & Cam Hanemann <hanemann@xxxxxxxxxx>]

input of a former customer

At 07:53 PM 03/30/2001 -0800, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: <MMagid3005@xxxxxxx>
>To: <cirkut8@xxxxxxxxx>; <panorama-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 12:02 PM
>Subject: Re: Rebuttal: Why IAPP is not for us.
>
>
> > How about taking your dispute elsewhere -- get back on topic and stop
>wasting
> > the time of hundreds of people.
>
>Excuse me, but there are tons of people interested in this dispute.  There
>is yet another dispute regarding those using pano cameras touting themselves
>as IAPP members and they're not.
>
>The organization and such credibility gives us all an integrity to promote
>out craft.  You guys who tap into this resource withut paying the $50 a year
>are 'bogus dudes!'
>
>I wanna know, I wanna know it all ... all about this asset of registration
>and the way we pass around information is meanst to remunerate us.
>
>We, we who pay ... we who pay the $50 a roll, minimum 100 rolls who pass it
>around and cyphon off the extras to those who have worked in want to know if
>it is all going to go away.  We have a reason and not trivial.
>
>There is a serious question, here.  One person, in particular, is a life
>time memember whose name was dropped off the list.  So, what's the value of
>the list?
>
>I'm interested.  Many of us who pay the $50 are interested and if you're not
>paying the $50 either delete yourself off this list or sit back and lurk.
>
>Translation:  Go Blow if you don't like this discussion -- more than likely
>you're not a member.
>
>Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
>wish I was in Nappa
>