In message <3.0.5.32.19980619172449.00ba5eb0&#167;alpha.ah.net>, Adam Todd writes:
>>no answer from adam on the issues raised.
>
>PLenty of answers, I'm really getting borded of repeating myself.

.. repeating yourself without answering the question?  yep -- i'd get
pretty bored of that too.

>>i guess this signals that
>>(a) nope, there isn't any real uptake of his servers, and 
>
>And you base this on what?  Your desire to mislead the public and this list?

err, i base it on looking at the caching nameservers of some of the largest
ISPs in this country?  please inform me of the error-of-my-ways, as far as
the methodology chosen?

me misleading?  surely you jest ..  nope, its quite sad.  i'm sure you're
serious.

>>the info i collected in finding out the caching nameservers large isps use,
>>this could be something useful for you to index in the ISP list you keep.
>>waddya think?  it'd be a useful way of finding out the exact (lack-of) uptake
>
>Again, you are making comments based on your personal feelings and
>inability to follow simple instructions.

please enlighten me as to what my 'inability to follow simple instructions'
is?  do i have to construct a nameserver query in some 'IPv8' manner?

>I am so tempted to post the damn users list, but considering I'd be in
>breach of my agreements, and the list of users is confidential, I won't.

how convenient.

>However if you join AURSC and use it, you will no doubt join the AURSC mail
>list for Members and thus will receive your own personal copy of such
>document.

.. and, pray-tell, why would i want to decrease the number of root-nameservers
from (currently) 13, located at in excess of 10 locations, down to *3*,
located off two (seemingly not-particularly-well-connected) links?

oh, you'll want me to back up that with some facts?

>Can you PING the AURSC servers.  If so you have 100% Visibility to the
>AURSC resources. 

yeah, but i'll leave it up to your imagination as to the packet loss . . 


have a nice day.

cheers,

lincoln.