>| §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?

I'd be pleased Kim if you put forward a constructive set of questions you
would like answered about AURSC.  I think I can feel confident most can be
answered.

In relation to rally of support.  No, I'm not really that pushy.  I make my
statements and people can choose.  

It's when "wankers" start talking from the kuff of them torn geans, I
become truely concerned about the state of the nation and the industry.
"Wankers" who have no experience and seem to wish to hop on a supposedly
favourable band wagon.  "Wankers" that need to stick together and attack
one primary person who seriously holds his own under all preasure.

Takes more than 11 people to take me down :)

>| 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.

Hey everyone needs a distraction.  You'd be surprised how many great
software apps have been created and inspired by the "Wankers" who waste my
time.

I'd not have the Daily AURSC Server Reports if it wasn't for Lincoln
(without an e) and I'd not have the updated version that tells me what Root
Server Network is used by those entries in the report if it weren't for
people like Clive Flory and Chris Chundry and I suppose Leigh Hart too.

>| 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 -

Oh Kim, I don't think I'd be game to say that.  I can quote where yu have
slammed the process.

>merely these strange methods of promotion utilised by
>Adam and others to legitimise them.

No promotion to legitimise, only promotion (if you insist on calling it
that) to let people know they have a choice.

>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. 

And your experiement failed - completely.  Totally.  Devistatingly.

Up till that time, I actually had some confidence in you.  After that "who
users AURSC" post, you lost a lot of credability with those who actually know.

See this is the beauty of you people and your arguments.  Those who are
using AURSC watch you silently ganging up on me.  They laugh at you because
THEY are using.

Then you post a list of Four Names when most of them get a daily list of
over 600.  Your credability falls yet again.  And my reputation and
credability increases.  

Probably no wonder I've suddenly been getting so many calls for consulting
of late.

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

OK.  Using those exact words.  You haven't.  But you haven't been
constructive towards it.  You have NOT used AURSC.  You have taken the
adversary point and marched forward to remove the legitimacy that does
exist, albetit failing dismally.  Especially when I put your post on the
AURSC web site for referance.

If you were to use AURSC, then I'd be happy to accept your comments. But
you can't speak from experience.  That's the problem.

>Believe it or not, I posted a constructive _suggestion_ to this list on
>how to promote AURSC a few months ago. 

You did? 

Can you repost it.  I've obviously missed it.

>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.

Kim, your starting to make offers I will be very appreciative of.  And i"m
sure the users will also.

Problem is, how do we control the "Wankers" from harassing these ISPs and
hurting their business operation?

>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.  

That is in fact the goal of the AURSC Web Site and approriate ISP Support
section.  But whilst I'm under this much fire, I'm not prepared to release
the data to anyone that might make it public for the protection of those
who have made a choice.

The Kuu Klux Klan is active on the Intenet too :)

>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?

Fair point.  I accept your comments.  I'll also apologies for being harsh
towards you.

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

I'll suggest it again.  Try using it.  You'll be pleasantly surprised how
little you actually EVER talk to the AURSC servers.

And a few of the ISPs who have followed the DNS design advice have made
claims that it's reduced their DNS traffic by 12-65%.  (I'm not sure about
65%, but i can believe 12%)