Patrick Greenwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Pardon my cynicism Patrick, but it has to be said:
>
> No, it doesn't have to be said, and I consider the question rather
> personal and rude. But since you insist:
>
This time you'll have to pardon the "in" joke that only fans of Father Ted
will get:
<Father Noel Furlong>ooooOOOOOoooooooo!</Father Noel Furlong>
Ye gods! It's not like I asked how much you were earning! I guess it could be
conceived as a personal question (in a communist country possibly?) but it's
one that I certainly would have no qualms about answering, and would expect
to be asked. Ultimately, you put yourself on the spot when you decided to
defend new.net here. You've been on the discuss-list for a while, and you
know what happens here. If you didn't *know* that you were going to get
flamed when you posted here, you deserve a prize for your innocence.
Personally, I feel it was rather a light and good humoured flame. A flamette,
if you will.
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
> > So it's nothing to do with the money so?
>
> Considering I was running a very successful consultancy prior to joining
> New.net where I was making considerably more money, I'm pretty sure the
> answer is "no." I'm here because I believe in what New.net is doing.
>
> If you have any other questions about my personal motivations or
> credibility, please consider keeping them to yourself.
>
I'll certainly do that. Feel free to ask me about mine. I'm a capitalist
socialist. Draw your own conclusions.
Unfortunately though, the situation remains the same, and your sigfile
illustrates it magnificently - new.net is the single point of failure for the
namespace they created. I don't believe for a second that the large ISP's
new.net convinced to add support for new.net did it out of the goodness of
their hearts. And I don't believe for a second that new.net has bottomless
coffers to continue expanding their namespace.
I'm on the bench as to whether new.net can succeed, but I'm doubtful, and
should they not succeed, I feel very, very sorry for the people who have, are
and will register domains in the new.net namespace. The fact that new.net
are "clear" about it - with an admirably small disclaimer in grey text at the
foot of their webpages - doesn't impress me one jot.
I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but that's the way I see it. To me, it
seems like just another .tv, another attempt to make money off the huge
population of gullible people the world seems to have spawned. Maybe yours
and new.net's intentions are honourable - maybe yours are and new.net's
aren't, or vice-versa - and if that's the case I hope you succeed, but I
remain cynical and unconvinced at this point in time.
I don't see how you could blame me for that. I'm just speaking my mind, and
possibly speaking the mind of others who remain just as cynical at this time.
adam
PS. If we're going to talk about "offensive", I find the suggestion that
we're not able to come to conclusions about ICANN off our own bat offensive.
Anyone who's read any of my posts knows I'm not a fan of ICANN. I haven't
fallen for their bluff and double-bluff simply because I'm just as cynical
about them. In fact, that's almost exactly the reason I'm cynical about
new.net - to me it looks like someone else trying to set their own standards,
and worse, commercialise them in an unacceptable manner.
