On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, at 14:47 [=GMT-0000], adam wrote: > Marc Schneiders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > I can see that you have thought about this very long, since you > > present your reasons for the measures you suggest in such a balanced > > way. > > > There's nothing good to be said about domain aggregators. Nothing. They're in > the same class as spammers. Again my compliments for presenting your case with such a detailed argumentation. -- Marc Schneiders _________________________________________ http://DW.GOODFAITH.ORG: Have faith! But let it be good, or you may be next... _________________________________________
- RE: .web, .nom, .shop, ... James Woods
- Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ... Florian Effenberger
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... William X. Walsh
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... Swerve
- Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, ... William X. Walsh
- RE: Re[2]: .web, .nom, .sho... J. Scott Schiller
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... adam
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... Marc Schneiders
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... adam
- Re: .web, .nom, .s... Marc Schneiders
- Re: .web, .nom... adam
- Re[2]: .web, .nom,... William X. Walsh
- Re: Re[2]: .we... Marc Schneiders
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... Lee Hodgson (DomainGuideBook.com)
- Re: .web, .nom, .shop, ... adam
- Re: .web, .nom, .s... Swerve
- Re[2]: .web, .... Florian Effenberger
- Re: .web, .nom, .s... Marc Schneiders
- Re[2]: .web, .nom, .shop, .... William X. Walsh
