See inserts.

____________ Craig Clark ________________ craig§cac.nu ____________ 
      Professional consultant by day, eccentric geek by night!
        What do I do on the weekend?? You don't want to know!
===================================================================  

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Adam Todd wrote:

> >Maybe so, maybe not.  What's not new to you doesn't apply to everyone.
> 
> Model T Ford - newest innovation of the 2000's!  Crank Start car, saves on
> excessive fuel and battery power, makes Environmentally friendly vehicle!
> 
> First of it's kind to be available in 2000.
> 
> Craig, HELLO.

Totally out of context i.e. I see cars everyday as anyone else does, how
many people see an extended character domain name everyday?  (That's a
general question to illustrate a point, I don't expect an answer as I
expect I know what it will be.)

> >This "defining new" could go on and on so let's agree to disagree on this
> >point, please..
> 
> No, I don't think so.  I think the ACCC and the Trade Practises Act if
> fairly clear on this matter.

Which has no impact on me as I engage in these lists as an individual with
a common interest, stating his opinion.

> >I don't believe I stated "revolutionary".
> 
> You implied it was a totally new, never done before service.  At least
> that's the impression I and many others got.  THat is "misleading" under
> the Trade Practises Act.

Here, let me quote my orginal post to the DNS list (no idea how LINK
became involved, I regret posting to SAGE (sorry guys/gals):

This is not related to the .au tld specificly, but I think many of you
will find it very interesting.

Cheers
Craig

... followed by the spam from NU tld.  I think that speaks for itself. But
if you want evidence I'll also forward the 2 messages of interest, and one
requesting a phone call which I assume wanted professional advice (I
didn't act on this request as it's not the reason I participate in these
lists).  That leaves your posts and the silent many.

> >I did post a message of an "interesting" nature for those not already
> >aware of this DNS activity.
> 
> No you posted a message about NU to which by your email address, you are
> specifically interested in, and have rather more interest than you make out.
> 
> As I said:  Money.
> 
> Then at the bottom of this message ...
> 
> >> Sadly most of the community has a short memory.
> >
> >I'll assune you're NOT implying that I am selling NU domains. While I own
> >one for personal use, I cringe when I see Australian business using them.
> 
> Then why do you have one at all?  And worse off, why post a message you
> called "interesting" if you cringe at the idea of people using them?
> 
> The whole idea of that posting you made was to entice business to buy
> domain names.  Hypoctritical?  Backstepping?

Crigne at the idea of people using them for professional purposes, please
quote read my statements carefully.  CAC.nu, CAC = Craig A Clark i.e. the
individual.

You are quick to judge my motives while making a lot of assumptions in
doing so.  That's quite a sad thing to do and I'm sure no one else on
these lists are interested in what's resulted!

Do you have a personal phone number and a work number, I sure
as hell know I do.  And I wouldn't have it any other way as I like to be
able relax when I'm at home.  Likewise I have my personal e-mail address,
that happeneds to be a .nu domain because they are cheap.  Now I can use
this domain for playing with my *nix boxen and it also allows me to keep
the same e-mail address, no matter who I use as an ISP.  

My day job is for a .com.au business who provide services to the
enterprise market and NU is of no interest to them.  My previous day job
was at an ISP where I would see the odd client leave for a vhost who
provided them a cheap NU for business use.  Eeek.

> >This thread started when I posted an e-mail of "interesting spam!"  While
> >most people confirmed they found it interesting,
> 
> Maybe so.
> 
> >this thread has been just as interesting for me also. :)
> 
> Of course it has.  Good Debate, no name calling, no poking fingers (well
> not much!) but on the same principal, the service feature is not new.
>
> I just wished top express that the announcement was pretty sad andmisleading.

Fine, i'll agree it's not new (fingers crossed :).  But misleading and sad
are totally assumptions you've from text on _your_ screen which I believe
you have taken out of context.  While others have read it for what it is,
information, pure and simple!

If we can't agree to disagree, can we take it off list for the sake of
bandwidth shortages in Australia? :)  And the list members.


Cheers
Craig