> From: "Roger B.A. Klorese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:50:45 -0800 > To: Swerve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: opensrs discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: OpenSRS Live Reseller Update [.com/.net & .name] - 13/02/03 > > Swerve wrote: > >> 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. >> > Were you going to make money for it? .com. Were you not going to? > .org. Easy.
My answer is yes and no to both questions. Not so easy. > >> 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?? >> > .org never had any. .net's were never enforced. Maybe on the actual administrative level. The perception at the time was different. > >>> It's confusion for the sake of vanity. >>> >>> >> >> That's one insulting way to describe it. >> > I'm sorry that you heard that as a personal attack. I think the entire > "I can have any suffix I want, no matter what it may do to confuse the > end-user" attitude is confusion for the sake of vanity, no matter who > does it. > >> 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. >> > Sounds perfectly fine to me. What's fine? The narrow and not forward thinking? > >> Try and explain that classification to a group of rationalists who >> controlled and probably still control the namespace. You snipped my part about Swerve.GooGoo >> >> > Systems must be rational to work. Well, there's 47 definitions for Systems at m-w.com If you are referring to the Namespace or top level domains or TLD's that must be rational, then i completely disagree. The namespace should reflect rational and irrational and ectstatic and chaotic and endless approaches. It's language, baby. >Artistic expression is free not to be. I agree. Free not to be and free to be. Do me a favour, Roger, don't snip out parts of my letters that you think are irrelevant. It changes the context and vibe of things i am saying. Now i really must smoke. don't snip that. :-) Swerve ----------- http://Swerve.GooGoo > >
