Sean,

> My main point is, advertising-only pages on a site is not a legitimate
> use, no matter how anyone (Even Vic) dresses it up.

And this is where we will always differ... 

I am not interested in 99.9% of the websites out there - but I'm
certainly not going to say they're not entitled to a domain.  The
reason being that my values are not the same as other peoples.

I see no value in a lot of blog sites out there... but the people
who write them obviously see some value - as do site visitors
(and I mean "value" in a broad sense here.... value is subjective,
and not always defined by a dollar amount).

You say that ad based sites are junk, and have no value... but
what you really mean is that they have no value *to you*.
Would the domains have more value if they remain
unresolved?

I'm sorry that the previous registrant did not renew their domain...
I'll be happy when the expiration period is extended to 30 days,
as this will reduce the occurence of accidental loss.  However,
given the generic nature of this particular domain, it is wrong of
you to suggest the new registrant is guilty of any inappropriate
behaviour such as domain camping.

How you figure it doesn't help the economy is also beyond
me... it generates value in the marketplace that in most cases,
did not previously exist.

Regards,
Kirk