response below. > From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:57:09 -0800 > To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: opensrs discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update [.com/.net & .name] - 13/02/03 > > Swerve wrote: > >>>> Using something for a purpose that distracts from and devalues its >>>> previous one -- the .net issue -- is totally different from finding a >>>> different purpose for a physical good. >>>> >>>> >> >> Is queerNet.Org a Net or an Org? Both? >> What is the meaning of Net in the domain name that you use? >> >> > On the left side ofd the TLD, it means we supply human networking. > > Hell, it could be "fishnetstockings.org" for all that matters. > > But in the TLD, it should classify.
Shoulda coulda woulda, but it never did properly classify. It was rediculously and painfully limited from the start. > >> Net or .Net points to many things, including, >> computer networks, people networks, fishNet works, and the InterNet. >> Prolly many others as well. >> > But there's no reason for it to be used as that in a TLD because "I > think I'm nettish, so I want .net." > >> It's most common use today, in my opinion, is a short form of the Internet. >> >> The Net. >> >> > But it had a perfectly useful purpose -- one that didn't need to be > eliminated because you think netting is what you do so you want to be > .net. And after all, if you COMmunicate, you should be .com -- there > should be no expectation of commercial activity. And if your commercial > entity is ORGanized, why not put it in .org? > > Do whatever the poop you want, they shouldn't have any meaning or > expectation, they're just separate and equal namespaces. The original meanings and expectations are part the problem. I or my vision didn't fit into any of those narrow categories in 1995. I wasn't a pure .Com or pure .Net or pure .Org or pure .Mil or pure .Edu or pure .Gov I was a solo pot smoking hack neZ artist excited about putting my work out. >From what i recall, i was forced into .Com by the limitations of the original system that didn't have a suffix that reflected my identity. The only Club, (from what i recall) i was allowed into was .Com. Anyone remember when .Net or .Org dropped their membership requirements?? > > It's confusion for the sake of vanity. That's one insulting way to describe it. You are obviously passionate about this discussion, but the barbs seem unnecessary to me. Don't worry though, i'm tough enough to handle them. (repeat) > It's confusion for the sake of vanity. It was exclusion as a result of narrow and not forward thinking that resulted in a system that divided the world/people/reality into 6 (?) main categories. .Net may have stayed in it's original "designation" if the name space had been actually reflective of it's users, but maybe not. I would have probably chosen Swerve.Art or Swerve.GooGoo or maybe dare i say, both. Yes, GooGoo. Try and explain that classification to a group of rationalists who controlled and probably still control the namespace. Smoke Now. (Organic Tobacco) http://Marijuana.Ca > >
