Ron

You love your big words. Ok let me try (PS I like both
points 1 and 3 for me):


pro·tag·o·nist    
n. 
1.The main character in a drama or other literary
work. 
2.In ancient Greek drama, the first actor to engage in
dialogue with the chorus, in later dramas playing the
main character and some minor characters as well. 

3.a)A leading or principal figure. 
b)The leader of a cause; a champion. 

THE OPPOSITE MUST BE:


an·tag·o·nist    ( P )  
n. 
1.One who opposes and contends against another; an
adversary. 
2.The principal character in opposition to the
protagonist or hero of a narrative or drama. 

So looks like you chose to be the anti-hero?

Aren't words fun Ron.

Run Ron Run!


 --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: >
Well, a response of childish petulance and name
> calling are fair indicators
> of how defensible a particular position is - and how
> seriously the
> protagonist can be taken
> 
> Contemptible posts deserve only to be treated with
> contempt.  I rest my
> case.
> 
> Ron Stark
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chesley Rafferty
> [mailto:chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 12:03 PM
> > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3561426
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > June date for Nominet legal fight
> > > > > > http://www.vnunet.com/News/1154488
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > DNA to test federal court judgement
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.arnnet.com.au/index.php?id=1924930834&fp=16&fpid=0
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Domain name seller appeals injunction
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Chesley Rafferty + Bradley Norrish, etc 
> > > > > > http://whatsinaname.com.au/slammers/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Josh
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > http://josh.id.au/
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
> > > > > http://dotau.org/
> > > > > > Please do not retransmit articles on this
> list
> > > > > without
> > > > > > permission of the author, further
> information
> > > at
> > > > > the above URL.
> 
=== message truncated === 

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