[IDNO:517] Re: NCDNH
Joop Teernstra (terastra@terabytz.co.nz)
Sun, 20 Jun 1999 15:14:08 +1200
At 19:03 19/06/1999 -0700, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@dso.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 3:19 PM
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 1999 07:42:35 -0700, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >In any case, it is interesting to watch you support Roeland in his
>> >fanciful discussion of creating yet another fake organization to gain
>> >representation.
>>
>> Kent, please stop jumping to such conclusions. When you do, you only
>> make yourself look bad. I was not supporting ANYONE, I was merely
>> passing information along and participating in a discussion on its
>> merits. For your information, the requirements I laid out, while they
>> may not be correct for the language of the proposed document, was what
>> 2 who inquired about being a part of this organization were told. So
>> what is happening in practice might be a lot different than the theory
>> of what is on paper.
>
>As usual the K*nt is trying to start yet another fight. Messr. scum-bag
>is wrong on two counts, one, the DNSO.NET exists and has been
>continuously operational since 18Dec98. Two, it is a real tax deduction
>for MHSC.NET. The IRS recognizes it as a bonefide non-profit activity.
>There are rules I have to abide by, but none to onerous.
>
>> >Roeland's attempt to shoehorn in a commercial entity in disguise is
>> >just a little dishonest, don't you think?
>>
>> I guess that depends on his intentions, which you would have NO way of
>> knowing. I think your coloring of both my comments and his in this
>> response of your is rather inappropriate, but it is the type of
>> conclusion jumping and criticism without merit that we have come to
>> expect from you.
>
>No, the scum-bag engages in an extremely dishonest form of debate,
>called "coloring". The Jack-ass is attacking my honesty directly. Its a
>smear tactic, expected from such feeble minded polecats. The fact that
>he is here under less than honest terms is an example of what he really
>stands for. He simply sees an opportunity to smear and he takes it.
>
>> >In any case, your discussion of this on the IDNO list is certainly
>> >off topic (though strangely, the list police have not said anything
>> >about it), so I won't continue this thread.
>>
>> As a non-member fo the IDNO, I don't think it is your place to make
>> any such conclusion. But this is just another example of your
>> presuming to make conclusions for others.
>
>Actually, I didn't think that discussing membership criteria was
>off-topic, for one nominated to the membership committee (me). Of
>course, I would look at what other constituencies are doing. However,
>the other point you make is also correct, Kent is not a member. In fact,
>if he were a member, he could no longer be in the NCDNHC.
>
>BTW William, if you don't reprint shit-head's posts, I won't see them
>and the K*nt's rantings won't piss me off. My filters work pretty good.
>
<moderator hat on>
The above exchange is a good example of what the rules say should be avoided.
See discussion list rules on the website.
Mr Crispin, as "observer" please refrain from provoking.
Mr Walsh, it is better not to repost provocations.
Mr Meyer, please control yourself, at least on the list.
Please remember that at some time all this unavoidably becomes public
archive. (even if the members would vote against that)</mh>
<banging the gavel in frustration> Now can we please say something useful
about the membership rules?
Interim Poobah,
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
--
This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send
a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz.
For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/