Hi Adam,
I appreciate you defense of me and your correct questioning of William
an "Frosty the snow Mans" supposed documentation which without
any real in depth scrutiny, is obviously both bogus and and obvious
attempt at attempting to smear me and our organization. But please
don't bother yourself, as William is an obvious fraud and has been accused
as such by his past employer (If you like I will privately forward that info to
you),
at the .TJ registry. You are only wasting you time, effort and band width
in your laudable efforts which I appreciate very much, sincerely.
Adam Todd Snr wrote:
> >The information I indicated is considered public information, not private,
> >here, and as such is not covered under that type of law, so it is probably
> NOT
> >correct. As a matter of fact, both SMU and the State of Texas deny that any
> >such procedures would be in place by them for ANYONE, much less Jeffrey A.
> >Williams.
>
> There was some information you have released that is in fact private.
>
> As to SMU and SOT, I would suspect as much. So why do you raise it as a
> question?
>
> >> Yes, but you included them as defence of my comments. Try and re-read
> your
> >> posting and then defend the matter in your own words, not by being a brash
> >> child and using sarcasim. I'm not interested in stupidity.
> >
> >How about presenting wildly inaccurate stats and twisting them to mean
> >something they obviously don't? I'm not interested in accusations and
> >challenges that are not backed up by details and facts. You have neither.
>
> What stats have I wildy twisted? Apart from that you are avoiding the
> point of my statement, which was about you using someone elses answers as
> answers to questions asked of you as a defence and answer.
>
> >Please contact me about this when you do.
>
> Do what? How about you validate your information.
>
> If it's so correct, why not front up and visit Jeff and shake his hand, get
> it on Video and come back and public the video. We're all dying to see
> what he looks like.
>
> >> BTW I have now been told who the report was commissioned by. I have also
> >> conveyed my concnerns to the them.
> >
> >That's nice. I'm sure they really appreciated it. And this is relevant to
> >me in what way.....?
>
> Information flows.
>
> You are merely a third party with an excessively over reactive manner.
>
> >> You can't charge someone with Murder just because they had a pocket knife
> >> in their pocket whilst shop lifting.
> >
> >As I said, that is your interpretation, others may see it differently, and
> >apparently someone does.
>
> My interpretation of what? I mere stated an analogy above. Not that
> anyone in our situation was shop lifting, the whole matter was a collusion
> between an agreived party who didn't like me telling them what the legal
> obligations under the law in fact were. And their first attempt proved me
> correct as did their second attemp.
>
> Sorry, I can't help it if I'm generally (99%) correct.
>
> >> And the circle continues.
> >
> >Until you are willing to discuss specifics.
>
> Anc the circle continues.
>
> >Please contact me when you are willing to.
>
> I'm always willing to discuss specifics. If I'm at liberty to do so.
> There is nothing stopping you from guessing them of course.
>
> >I would most enjoy comparing information, and posting verifiable corrections,
>
> I don't believe those who are aware of the information would agree to
> making it public as it was obtained with caution. Some of the data is not
> a matter of easily accessible public record. Although it's possible to do.
> Of course.
>
> >and pointing out any flaws in either sets of information, so people can
>
> Judging by your comments and manner, I doubt yu will be able to point out
> any flaws, you haven't pointed out the ones in your own comments and postings.
>
> >make their own judgements, as I have advocated and encouraged them to do.
>
> I didn't make a judgement. I sent you a private email suggesting you
> verify the data as it appeared to be irrelevant to your objective.
>
> In return you posted a Public Reply and have continued to post publicly all
> day.
>
> As I've already said, your credibility fall rapidly the moment you
> converted our private thread into a public thread. And continues to fall.
>
> I've at no time made any allegation about you, I merely pointed out you
> shodul recheck the data you have posted and I strongly suggested that you
> be careful about how you promote it and publish it.
>
> I also suggested you correct a few errors to make it look more reliable and
> that the scanned documents were in duplicate and caused confusion to the
> reader.
>
> Since then, you have:
> critised me
> attacked my personal values
> attacked my credibility without any evidence
> attacked my company and it's credibility
> insulted me without just cause
> attacked my wife
> attacked my baby
> made claim that my sons web site documentation is slanted without
> explaining how or why
> claimed that the use of the word KidNap on the site is not valid
> when by dictionary definition it is and you provide no reply.
> attacked AURSC and IRSC without ever being a member of either organisation
> not formally asked for any information from either organisation.
>
> I think your not doing so well.
>
> >> It's not odd. I'm not in a position to provide any details. If I was I'd
> >> probably have done it already. You dont' think I can really keep a secret
> >> without having my thumbs screwed do you?
> >
> >When it serves your purpose.
>
> Fortuntaley it will never server my purpose, not that of the others who are
> aware of the information.
>
> Unlike yourself, we are more interested in the issues rather than attacking
> the people. I have done my best in our exchanges today to avoid attacking
> you personally, with the exception of the above points, although they are
> merely a representation of what you have done through comment on the issue,
> so it's not really a personal attack on you.
>
> >Quite frankly, I think it serves your purpose to be as disruptive of this
> >process as possible,
>
> What process? The fact that some of you seem to want to distract the
> issues from discussion of DNS to discussions and a character assasination
> on someone you can't even get valid data on?
>
> I can't see how I contribute to that, other than the fact I've had no
> alternative but to reply to these messages as you insist on making tyhem
> public all the time.
>
> Again I reitterate that My original posting was in private email to you and
> not on this list. You alone found it enough to distract and sirupt the
> list for the day (and probably the next few) by slinging allegations about
> me, my wife, my baby, my projects, those I work with, those who work with
> me and probably others I've missed.
>
> >and I think that is what Jeff Williams is involved in this to do.
>
> I don't understand the above statement.
>
> >So I see his existance, and him having some credibility, as serving
> >your own purposes as well.
>
> Oh for goodness sake. William, I've not spoken to, about or commented
> publicly about Jeff Williams EVER.
>
> You are the one who posted a private email from myself to you to a List and
> turned it into a public show.
>
> Don't blame me. You could easily have kept this in private between
> yourself and myself. Where it belonged.
>
> >OK, so I've watched too many X-Files episodes. :) At least I can laugh at
> >myself :)
>
> At least you are the only one laughing at yourself. The rest of us wish
> you would just grow up and just join the human race.
>
> Sorry to be personal, but what else can I say?
>
> >> More to the point, do you think I'd want to keep it a secret?
> >
> >If it serves your purpose yes I do. Or I am placing too much credit in your
> >intelligence?
>
> Yet again you try and attack me. Now my intelligence. I have not rated
> your intelligence before, but I'd like to see your Mensa Membership.
>
> >> The only problem is you are not dealing in Public, you are smearing in
> >> public and you are smearing the wrong person. But that's your problem,
> not
> >> mine.
> >
> >I'm not smearing, I'm presenting the evidence that has been collected.
>
> Evidence not collected by you and not verified in any way by you.
>
> In terms of a court what you have done is presented heresay evidence which
> is irrelevant.
>
> So all you have successfully done is promoted a smere campaign.
>
> >People are free to check it out and draw their own conclusions.
>
> What so they can find out only 2% is correct?
>
> >Anyone else with the resources could of unearthed the same data, perhaps
> >even more.
>
> As I have tried to tell you, more has been "unearthed" and you are not
> privileged to it. Nor is your third party PI.
>
> >I am aware that what I have is not the full and complete set of reports
> >on this matter,
>
> Now you are telling us that only a small part of the evidence is presented.
> This certainly stands true only 4 or 5 pages of the 16 were presented.
>
> How can you ask anyone to advicate a judgement if you only present a
> smidgent of the evidence?
>
> I hope you never go to court. They might just say that because you have a
> gun you shot everyone in unsolved murders for the last 10 years. Forget
> trying to prove the fact that guns never been fired. The court in your
> terms only needs to know you have a gun.
>
> >but it is what has been made available to me, minus the data I felt was
> >out of line to make public because it did not relate directly to Jeffrey A.
> >Williams (aka KCKid) or his participation and claims made in these forums.
>
> So you published data you have no verfication upon. You haven't checked
> any of it yourself, you have no certificates of authenticity.
>
> Gosh you really are more stupid than I thought.
>
> And you claim my son's web site is slanted.
>
> Amazing. At least we've not left anything out of it.
>
> >You can criticize me and my motives all you want. You can critize the report
> >all you want. I personally have NO vested interest in the accuracy or
> >inaccuracy of the data.
>
> Then why publish it?
>
> >I have repeatedly asked Jeff for a factual refutation
>
> If you have no interest why the hell do you care?
>
> >of the reports' contents, and welcome him to point out any inaccuracies that
> >can be verified.
>
> Why? You have no interest so you don't care whetehr he does or not and as
> you have no interest why devote a web site and the time it took to scane
> the documents and cut them up?
>
> >No one,much less me, has anything to fear from the truth.
>
> What truth, you have already indicated that this is merely a small seciton
> of the data that YOU FELT was approriate. No one can draw a judgement on
> 5% of everything.
>
> >And if any part of that report can be shown to be inaccurate, I will post the
> >evidence showing that alongside and welcome people to continue drawing their
> >own conclusions.
>
> Why bother? You just said you have nothing to gain and are not interested.
>
> All you have done above is evidence you are merely on a smear campaign.
>
> You are very very foolish. Indeed.
>
> >Why are you so opposed to people having all the available information, and
> >drawing their own conclusions?
>
> Because to yuse your own words:
>
> >I am aware that what I have is not the full and complete set of reports
> >on this matter, but it is what has been made available to me, minus the
> >data I felt was out of line to make public because it did not relate
> >directly to Jeffrey A. Williams (aka KCKid) or his participation and
> >claims made in these forums.
>
> Therefore no one can make a judgement because YOU HAVE NOT presented ALL
> THE AVAILABLE information for a decision to be made.
>
> Are you truely this foolish? Or are you merely a smear campaign monger and
> a total idiot?
>
> VOTE 1 - TODD & TODD for the NSW UPPER HOUSE 27 March 1999
> AJ Kidnapped by NSW Government - See http://docs.ajtodd.com
> Gold Trimmed White Ribbon Campaign - see http://docs.ajtodd 12 Feb 99
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Adam Todd http://adamtodd.ah.net
> Business Development, Technology, Domain Registration and Network Advisory
> Phone +61 2 9729 0565 - Todd Corporation http://www.todd.inoz.com
> Fax +61 2 4659 6786 - AHNET http://www.ah.net
> - AURSC http://www.aursc.ah.net
> Telstra Reseller and Telstra Convey Member (Not an Employee of Telstra)
> Get the DOMAIN NAME HANDBOOK NOW http://www.domainhandbook.com
>
> --
> DOMAIN-POLICY administrivia should be sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To unsubscribe send a message with only one line "SIGNOFF DOMAIN-POLICY"
> For more help regarding Listserv commands send the one line "HELP"
Kindest Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
