This is a public plea to clean up this list. It has turned into a cess
pool again.

chmod 444 ./offending_party_ability_to_participate_in_this_list

(I.E. Read only).

Please ask yourself before posting if your post is either 
a) constructive, or 
b) humourous(?). 
If it is negative, please do not post. 
If it is inflamatory, please do not post.

Should we rename the list the DNS-SH!T-SLINGING-LIST ? or is it to be
kept the DNS-DISCUSSION-LIST.

I am interested in
a) DNS Discussion for positive gain.
b) Discussion about Domain Names, Both Australian And Global, as it is
my assumption as this list is populated mainly By Australians /
Aus-Pacific parties, and .au and other domains (may) impact on this
region differnetly than other parts of the world. (i.e. a geographic
interest group)
c) Technical Discussion about policy / regulation.
d) Being alerted of breaches of policy, companies involved, and
discussion about this.
e) All of the above to be conducted in a couteous manner parallel with
the privilege of your position in the domain industry.
F) Regular News articles. (Good value).
g) other related happenings in the industry (Yes, in fact, the mailed
out notices are part of this, and i consider good value, so that when
our clients ring, we can tell them to read closely)

Do I care if someone is going to whoop skeeve's wifes shopping budget to
caress your ego / "emotional damages" or whatever, heck no, unless that
party has registered imgunnawhoopskeeve.com.au and its doesn't fit into
.au policy.

Cheers
Sean Finn
www.ozservers.com.au

-----Original Message-----
From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad§brad.com.au] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 3:38 PM
To: dns§dotau.org
Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


Skeeve

These cases are particularly expensive to run I've been told, prob $100k
for each party but now with your expert legal advise I can save that
cost.

You are an intelligent man sleeve, I'm sure you can understand even if
you win it will be a year + before you get your costs back, but if you
lose I'll claim my $100k+ out of  your wife's grocery spending budget,
any lawyers/accountants on the list know if that's a tax deduction for
skeeve?

From your postings its hard to tell whether your a naughty kid who's
playing with fire or a court judge.

Brad


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve&#167;skeeve.org>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


>
> How amusing.
>
> Brad has decided to threaten me with legal action unless I publish an 
> apology within 24 hours. He thinks that a post that I refer to his 
> lack of business ethics and morals was untruthful and damaging to his 
> reputation.
>
> I state now, my defence of my post.
>
> Firstly under 'Fair Comment'
>
> A) It was comment/opinion
> B) The facts of your activities are widely documented (and thanks to 
> Josh and others, VERY detailed) and as such known by the participants 
> in the forum.
> C) The communication was of public interest to the list. (Debatable, 
> but
was
> of interest to me... Anyone else found my comment 'interesting' ;-)
>
> For clarification.  It is in my OPINION, and having that opinion, I 
> COMMENTED on what I perceived to be your failings.
>
> Next under 'Truth'
>
> For something to be found defamatory, the law must presume it is 
> false. My OPINION, based on your business activities that are well 
> documented, would constitute a form of Truth.
>
> In QLD, Tas, ACT and NSW, should you choose to prosecute there, it is 
> also required that the publication was for public benefit.  
> Considering the context of the forum involved, I don't think that is 
> an issue.
>
> So.. Brad is it all clear for you?
>
> More explanation?
>
> I could give you more examples of my opinions regarding your 
> misleading business practices. But I really don't want to waste any 
> more time on a
fool
> such as yourself.  Oh.. No.. Is that defamation? Oops, wrong again, it

> is just my opinion, or is name calling to be considered defamation 
> now.
>
> Oh, and lastly... Since your replied to the offending post, there by 
> re-publishing it, it would suggest that you don't actually disagree 
> with
the
> posting since you are happy to again pass it on to the people on the 
> list
> ;-)
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad&#167;brad.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 1:56 PM
> To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
>
> Skeve
>
> Brave Words. Please clarify the first line.
>
> This kind of  "don't question anything, especially our crew, don't 
> rock
the
> boat anyone, things are travelling fine ... anybody who talks about a
change
> in things should be silenced" is exactly the kind of reaction we would

> expect from a cartel type arrangement, not capitalist industry.
>
> I also notice your 2nd line backs up what I have said about people 
> taking this list as if it's an Auda list.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ Please do

> not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the author,

> further information at the above URL.
>
>
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/ Please do
not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
author, further information at the above URL.