On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, Domain Registration Role Account wrote:
> >>
> >> Whatever, the InterNIC they created was.
> >
> >Wrong again. I suggest you do you more research before spouting such
>
> I did, thanks:
No, what you did is retreive partial information, which is often times
worse than having no information at all.
> ::In 1993 the consulting firm of Network Solutions, Inc. (NSI) won a
> ::five-year contract with the U.S. government to create InterNIC, an
> ::entity that administers domain names ".com," ".net," and ".org."
> ref http://www.historyoftheinternet.com/chap7.html
The "InterNic" was created by contract with the National Science
Foundation, and was a combination of services provided by Network
Solutions, General Atomics, and AT&T(who owned the trademark on the term
until just recently.) It's original purpose as might be intuited by the
name was to act as a coordination point between these bodies.
In fact, why don't we take a look at the FAQ on the very site
itself: http://www.internic.net/faq.html
"Is the "InterNIC" synonymous with Network Solutions, Inc.?
No. The InterNIC is a concept for an integrated network information center
that was developed by several companies, including Network Solutions, in
cooperation with the U.S. Government.
Under a recent agreement with the U.S. Government, Network Solutions is
transitioning from the use of the word "InterNIC" in connection with its
products and services. InterNIC is a registered service mark of the
U.S. Department of Commerce."
> But let me predict it won't end here. After reading your comments
> below, I'm guessing the relative immateriality of this to the thread
> at hand will be lost in the shuffle over who can tell the other
> they're wrong most emphatically,
Your prediction is of course correct. I can't help that you wish to be
free to post misinformation without people countering it with fact.
> as is consistent with all such auxillary discussions which sprout from
> one man's desire to do nothing more than assert his superiority over
> others by telling someone else he's wrong (or stupid, or has overpriced
> something in a .forsale group that you can now buy new for half the
> price, or can't spell, or uses incorrect grammar, poor diction, et
> al).
Rule #1 of backpeddling: Ignore facts, and attack messenger on
method of delivery.
> Having recently partaken an protracted engagement with another one of
> your like recently, forgive me if I lack the stomach to put up with
> you. Why don't we just cut to the chase? Mine's 8 inches. How about
> you.... dickhead?
Did I touch a nerve, because I don't remember having resorted to
namecalling.
You want to be mad at NSI. Fine, be mad at NSI. I have no great love of
them either. But the reasons you cited for being upset with them are
factually incorrect. You are of course free to continue ranting about
these things, but it just looks silly.
Oh, BTW I've been called names by people much better at it than you.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Earth is a single point of failure.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
