As regards the comments below, generally, I find that the criticisms of
volunteer work are inversely proportional to the quality of the critic's
participation in the overall effort!
On to Jeff: Being selective is not the same as being a censor. Your
prodigious output is NOT censored, although it is now "filtered" by a
number of list subscribers. No one denies you the opportunity share your
opinions, but we have no obligation to follow your suggestions, much less
to read them or to repeat your words in our own postings.
If you don't like the method Antony used to condense and distill
dnso-discuss, you are free to make your own attempt at the task. Even
better, why don't you start a jw-discuss or INEG-discuss list and post a
veritable word storm there? I'm sure with 24K shareholders, you have many
issues to keep y'all busy.
Jeffrey A. Williams wrote:
> Yes and you did not include andy of the postings of substance
> in you summary
> that We (INEGroup) made either including our proposed draft ideas
> either Antony. You also specifically made a comment regarding ME
> in specific as to NOT including any of our suggestions. Now this is
> certainly NOT OPENNESS or TRANSPARENCY and is a form of
> CENSORSHIP. with respect ot you ZERO SUM game fraudulent
> report from your own words.
>
> CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF ITS FORMS IS WRONG!
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================ // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us \ ) Tiburon, CA
// \\ "Carpe canine"