John

Thank you for your fair and unbiased opinion on the
list. It seems that only you and Bennett have taken an
uncompromised posistion in the last week.

Whilst I don't expect most people on this list to like
it, provided I make any changes that the Court ruling
requires, I have the same rights to run my business as
any other on this list.

It's good to see that reason still exists on this
list.

Thanks

Chesley

 --- John Russell <jr&#167;veridas.net> wrote: > It seems
to me that because of the hollow victory
> achieved
> by auDA and the ACCC, that Josh and Ron are
> attempting to milk
> every last comma of significance, and publicity, 
> from what is, in my
> opinon, a piss weak ruling.
> 
> auDA and the ACCC and Josh are now trying to use the
> weak ruling as the
> basis
> for a concerted and continuos attack on Rafferty and
> co.
> 
> Rafferty and co. will simply look at the recent
> events as "battle scars"
> along the journey.
> 
> Whilst I don't agree with their marketing tactics,
> the facts are that they
> are not bound by
> auDA's self made rules.
> 
> My advice, to Josh and Ron, which I am sure you will
> not take, is to let it
> go.
> You have wasted a lot of money for almost nothing.
> 
> Perhaps you have embarked on this anti Rafferty
> compaign to lift your own
> profiles and establish
> your credentials to the importance that you think
> you deserve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell CEO. CTO
> Veridas Communications
> www.veridas.net
> 1300 883 638
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note:
> This communication and any attachments may contain
> privileged and/or
> confidential information intended only for the
> person addressed.  If you
> receive or intercept this communication and are not
> the person addressed,
> please notify me on jr&#167;veridas.net immediately.  No
> confidentiality or
> privilege is waived by the receipt or interception
> of this communication and
> its attachments by person(s) not being the person(s)
> addressed.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chesley Rafferty" <chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au>
> To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> temporary setback (Chesley
> Rafferty)
> 
> 
> > Ron
> >
> > Let me try to answer with semantics:
> >
> > moron or fool!
> >
> > Whats the difference?
> >
> >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: >
> > Yes, I mean auDA.  And I don't intend to get into
> an
> > > argument on what
> > > constitutes a Federal Regulatory Authority,
> because
> > > that's what auDA is,
> > > even it it's not a Statutory Authority, which is
> a
> > > different matter.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your refutation I cited *exactly*
> from
> > > the 2nd paragraph in the
> > > Age article
> > >
> >
>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > - I have no need to "try reading" as you
> suggest.
> > >
> > > Irrespective of the semantics of the paragraph I
> > > cited or the one to which
> > > you refer, the anomaly I noted still stands.
> > >
> > > You either comply with the rules or you don't -
> you
> > > appear to have chosen
> > > the latter.
> > >
> > > Ron Stark
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chesley Rafferty
> > > [mailto:chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:48 AM
> > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > setback (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Can you please detail what the second "federal
> > > regulatory
> > > > authorities". Could you possibly mean
> auda....???
> > > >
> > > > Also try reading, it says "...vigorously
> defend
> > > its right to
> > > > conduct business without interference from its
> > > competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > It doesnt say that we as you seem to think
> > > "...vigorously
> > > > defend its right to conduct business without
> > > (APPARENTLY
> > > > REMOVE**interference from its**)
> competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > Ches
> > > >
> > > >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au>
> wrote: >
> > > There's an
> > > > interesting anomaly in the article in the
> > > > > Age
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html)
> > > > > According
> > > > > to that report, Rafferty says  " ... had a
> right
> > > to conduct
> > > > business
> > > > > without interference from competitors and
> would
> > > seek to
> > > > have Federal
> > > > > Court injunctions lifted."
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that it was complaints from
> consumers
> > > and two federal
> > > > > regulatory authorities that had precipitated
> the
> > > "intereference" of
> > > > > which he complains.
> > > > > That's analogous to a criminal complaining
> that
> > > the police
> > > > interfere
> > > > > with his right to sell drugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience, being in business is a
> > > contimual process of
> > > > > responding to "interference from
> competitors".
> > > Since when
> > > > has it been
> > > > > a right to have no competitors, as inferred
> by
> > > Rafferty's statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Stark
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh&#167;email.nu]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:33 AM
> > > > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > > > Subject: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > > setback
> > > > > > (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scammer says court defeat temporary
> setback
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> 
=== message truncated === 

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com