>My comments were merely to observe that I could find no information about
>"IPv8" on the web site related to the organisation who originated and are

Hmm, and when you went to the Ford Web Site did you find documentation
about the Holden?

>most frequently associated with the use of a label such as "IPvn" for some
>value of n, the IETF. IP version numbers are assigned by IANA. Did you get
>"8" assigned to you by IANA, Jim? 

I see.  And 686, most frequentyly used to refer to a Pentium or like
processor ... well I'm sure you are slightly intelligent enough to
understand what I'm getting at.

>In Australia, deliberately framing something so that it looks like it is
>related to the works of others, when it is not, is illegal under our trade
>practices legislation, it is known as "passing off".

Unless your Intel, AMD, Cyrix or ....

ADNA - who are trying to convince people they are the Australian Domain
Name Authority - with absolutely no AUTHORITY at all.

Hmm, brings up questions doesn't it?

>How, from my email, in which I asked you (and I quote) "What *are* you on
>about", can you possibly imply anything about me, my understandings, my
>biases, or my beliefs? Do you really mean to imply that any statement which

Because you posted several messages and have never tried or tested the
suggestions made to you.  That shows bias.

I woudl have thought you at least had progressed from 1st Grade primary
school.

>you might be able to imply as being critical of your point of view must
>have been originated by someone you believe to be a non-innovative person? 

I'd not say "non-innovtive"  I'd be saying more along the lines of "biased
without knowledge."

>How dare you ! You know nothing about me, Jim - while all I know about you
>can be encapsulated in the closing paragraph of this email message. 

Simon, some people know more about you than you realise.

>Please give me a reference to whatever it is you say you have created, so I
>can evaluate the source material at face value. I wanted to give you an
>opportunity to explain  more about whatever it is that you are labelling as
>"IPv8",  by disclosing where it is documented. But taking my question and
>turning it into a personal attack makes you look even sillier than you
>already look, Jim.

You attack Jim and his concept, claiming it's non existant and then ask him
for his research material.  

EGAD.  I'd have asked questions first then shot him down later.

Clearly you are more TWIT and IDIOT than inteliigent.  You're certainly
showing it now.

Just like Rick, who hasn't a clue what he is talking about, but constantly
shoots down first and asks questions later.

Move to Pakistan or India.  Then you can press the BUTTON before you find
out who set the train bomb.

>(we now return you to the Adam and Jim show, making a mailing list near you
>useless by filling it with self-serving, childish drivel. I used to think

Yes, filled with childish drivel from people like yourself who seem to
endlessly harass me but never take the innitiative to find out what we're
on about.

You have never tried AURSC to see that it stands on it's own two feet.  Yet
you make wild accusations and claims to which you can provide no evidence.

SIMON WAKE UP.

>that make.money.fast spam was bad until you two started to devote all of
>your waking hours to personally destroying mailing lists' efficacy with
>this paranoid claptrap, attacking people instead of actually discussing the

Parnoid - you really are talking about yourself Simon.  I'm not th one
making wild claims about things I've not first investigated, asked
questions and been provided with answers, and even tested, so I know what
I'm talking about.

You just bash AURSC without first trialing it.

The day I see you trial it for a week, I'll take respect for your opinion
in the mean time - you are a CON with intent to decieve and mislead people
who are not as experienced in matters of DNS and you clearly speak out in
an authoritive manner about AURSC to which you have NO RIGHTS TO DO SO.

>technology relevant to the list at hand. The only reason I reacted to the
>"IPv8" posting is that the misuse of the term "IPv8" elevates this stuff
>from an annoyance to a potentially damaging misuse of public perceptions.

Gosh you like drawing assumptions. IPv8 could mean "Intelligent People Vote
8" You must be one of the bigger TWITS who claims all respect but no
responsibility.  

<sigh>


I just can't believe I've had to come so far down to your level to try and
hold a discussion with you.  To call you names even.  I just don't normally
do that, but gee you really do have to fight fire with fire.