Re: DNS: silence is golden

Re: DNS: silence is golden

From: Adam Todd <at§>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 23:33:30 +1000
>>>And to me ... that's Kate and Simon Hacket.  (Gosh Simon, Kaul Aurbach will
>>>be very dissapointed in you.)
>Dear Mr Toad (oops, sorry),

Intentional Simon,  Shame.

>(1) Spell my name right, and learn to TRY to spell and earn just another
>tiny, tiny iota of respect from others, ok?

I left of a 'T' at least I didn't replace it.  I'll take that as a sign of

>(2) You didn't even spell Karl's first OR second names correctly, and you

Gosh I was having a ba morning.  Guess that's what happens when you find
out some ISPs are defrauding their clients, more important things.

>didn't respond to my last request to explain precisely why Karl is relevant
>to you or your ideals so I don't expect you will this time either.  So how

I must have missed it, or you missed my reply, anyway it's old news.

BTW my "poor" spelling is a bit of a trade mark these days.

>your apparent lack of social grace. Why don't you demonstrate the truth of
>your convictions about Karl, if they are true, and invite him to drop me a
>line privately to explain why your rantings on this mailing list are worthy
>of further consideration. I can't see why for the life of me.

I have done so.  Did this morning.

>>>Shame to loose Geoff H though.  Still, it was expected.
>no, actually, everyone else will move to a new list and carry on a sensible
>discussion there, without you. 

I have no problem with that.  Just shows how OPEN the process is.  Mind
you, it appears me, on my lonesome, can create such a ruckus, that you need
to create a new list to ignore me.

Perhaps this indicates one of two things.

Either you (collectively) are fearful of what I might say in an opjectional
manner or constructive critisim that it may sway others whom you are trying
to otherwise convice, 


you know I'm so totally on the ball, that you (collectively) require
several people to constantly bitch (Kims word) at, or about me, rather than
on the issue.

Eventually, my comments resurface 2 months later by someone who originally
attached them, as a "New Idea."

As many have come to realise there is NOTHING NEW about ADNA, in fact the
similarities between ADNA and the IAHC continue to sprout.  Where as the
Similarities between ADNA and the COMMON wish of the "Netizen" doesn't show.

In all cases, Simon, the matter has been an attack at me personally, not at
the issue I'm discussion.  This the goal of the attacher is to cause
disrespect and a fall in credability.

What takes a little while to sink in for most people is that, I'm generally
the only one in hold my side of the debate against so many others - thus my
volume of reply.  

NOTE - REPLY.  A Reply is very different to that of a new topic.  I wish I
were spending more time creating topical discussion than REPLYING to people
on the same issue tossed at my from more than ONE direction.

I will ALWAYS use my RIGHT OF REPLY in any debate or discussion.

>You'll be the only person left in the empty room. I look forward to it, but

Hasn't happened yet.  And Simon, I hope you don't miss out on something
because of your attitude to me.

>I am disappointed that the spirit of open discussion which generally exists
>in internet mailing lists of this sort doesn't make it easy to just remove
>you instead.

Yes, but to remove me would be an admission by the collective, that I have
clearly valid points they wish not to have raised.

>It would sure be simpler. You've been removed from other lists
>in the past (making somewhat of a habit of scoring that honour, in fact),

Actually, I've not been removed from ANY list in my life todate.  I've not
been banned and I've not been unwelcomed.

Could you tell me what LIST I've been removed from please?

>and so perhaps, one day, the adminstrators of this one will exercise
>statesmanship and remove you from this one.

I certainly hope not.  That would be not only undemocratic, the claim ADNA
constantly makes, but also a very serious mark against it's PUBLIC and OPEN
stance.  My opinion, which may only be one, is still valid.  You have no
idea how many people support a similar or same opinon.  Hopefully most
exerceise the "Me Too" avoidance rules.  

I constantly hear how no one wants to hear about AURSC and how no ISP's
support it, but in reality these claims always come from the same 10
people.  Th eother 50 odd who support it retain their silence in smug humour.

I enjoy the debate from the same ten.  As I explained to Tony Barry this
moring.  For every RICK who bags and bitches, there are four or five ISPs,
who take Ricks beloved Hop Count (which he STILL hasn't done) and realises
that RICK is talking out his ear, and thus end up trialing and supporting

I appreciate RICKS lack of education and inderstanding, because it adds to
my credability.

In a comment to RICK, I'm still waitint to see that HOP COUNT you so
stronly objected to with respect to AURSC.  It's not that hard to trace to
a number of Root Servers, you managed to do it to AURSC or was it AHNET?

Anyway, Simon, I hope you'll read this carefully, appologie in advance for
the typos and spelling errors, that's just me, you like it or lump it. None
of us are perfect in all ways.
Received on Tue May 26 1998 - 00:09:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:03 UTC