Kim and all,

Kim Davies wrote:

> Quoting Jim Fleming:
> |
> | §sidenote.. Six months ago I was quite happy for you to talk about AURSC and
> | §float your ideas, but after months and months of your endless invective and
> | §dribble it really becomes hard for someone not to grow to hate you. I really
> | §do hope you see that if your aim here is to rally support for your cause -
> | §that you're really going 180 degrees to your intended course.
> |
> | What topics would YOU like to talk about ?
>
> Err, not the same AURSC v. everyone topic again, and again, and again, and
> again. Please?
>
> | Adam is clearly off working on some leading edge projects. I am not
> | sure why he wastes his time going back and forth here.
>
> That's a question we all ask ourselves.

  Why ask at all unless you have suspicions?  Do you?  And if you do, what
are they based on.  If you don't have suspicions on what Adam is doing than
this comment would not have been necessary at all, now would it?

>
>
> | Maybe Adam's project has not yet developed to the magnitude and .....
>
> I've never once slammed or criticised AURSC or any of the alternate
> DNS initiative - merely these strange methods of promotion utilised by
> Adam and others to legitimise them. My recent post was a reflection on
> claims made regarding the extent of people who can see AURSC domains -
> and was an objective post of my experiments.

  Than you should have definitively stated that clearly and directly.  You didn't
do that Kim.  So it is of little wonder why Adam might have so reluctance to
provide you or anyone with any specific info.

>
>
> Where did I ever say I did not support Adam's project (*) - huh?

  Never directly....  Now indirectly is another story.

>
>
> Believe it or not, I posted a constructive _suggestion_ to this list on
> how to promote AURSC a few months ago.
>
> In fact - here is another suggestion. If Adam feels concerned about
> client confidentiality to release a list of ISPs that are configured
> to resolve AURSC domains - I will happily list their AURSC membership
> on the ISP List website.

  This is no suggestion at all Kim.  And it is baiting Adam and suggesting
and challenging Adam to do something that he may not have the freedom to
do due to contractual restrictions.

> He can feel free to get any or all of them to
> email me and I will make a public list of them. Those that do not wish
> to say they do don't have to, those that do can advertise it as a benefit
> of membership.
>
> You're not going to 'win' if you keep debating with people who obviously
> have staunchly inverse opinions to you - especially when you make
> claims people just don't believe. Why try?

  People believe what they WISH to believe for whatever reason they choose to
believe them.  That does not make them FACTS or FACTUAL in nature.

>
>
> kim
>
> (*) That's not to say I do support it either. The jury is still out.

  What jury?  Who appointed you or anyone else to a "Jury"?  And why
is there a judgment even needed?

regards,


--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com