On 18-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
>
> William, you might want to wipe the brown matter that is readily present
> upon your nose. I hope the whiff was worth it? >;)
Actually, Jeff, I think that is more the case with your support of PGMedia,
which seems to be counter to your interest in NSI's stock (alledgedly).
I'm becoming more and more suspicious about who you might really be and your
true affiliations.......
BTW, why aren't you in the meeting in SF with Esther? I thought you were
attending......
> William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > On 18-Mar-99 jeff Williams wrote:
> > > William and all,
> > >
> > > However this victory for NSI may be short lived. Something that you
> > > seemed
> > > to have very conveniently left out or your post here William. Wonder
> > > why???
> >
> > I didn't leave anything "conveniently" out Jeff. The clause that it says
> > it is
> > short lived mentions that the reason is because of the 5 new registrars,
> > which
> > we all know about already. And that has no bearing on the PGMedia case,
> > and
> > hence was not something I felt needed to be drawn attention to in my small
> > two
> > line message.
>
> Perciesly my point, thank you for supporting it for me again here with
> this
> comment. Your "TWO LINE" message, is as usual by its, brevity, misleading
> as to the actual contents of the URL you posted, of course. Hence
> attempting
> to state one thing when something totally is obviously in evidence. Nice,
> but weak attempt at spin, William. You should let professional Spinmisters
> do the spinning, William. You are a rank amateur in that realm!! But I do
> applaud the effort! >;)
I did no such think Jeff. And you know it. Nothing I said was misleading in
anyway. Of course someone from PGMedia may feel the ARTICLE is misleading
since it doesn't support their case, but we know that would not be case.
Though following your flawed logic it would be.
> > Of course I notice your attempt to play it as something totally
> > different. I wonder why.....could there be some possible affiliation
> > between
> > PGMedia and Jeff Williams that we should know about?
>
> No affiliation, just a kindred sprit, you might say...
uh-huh
> >
> >
> > Here is the relevent paragraph :
> > > Network Solution's victory however is likely be
> > > short-lived. In May, five companies -- including
> > > Network Solutions, are scheduled to begin competing
> > > in the rapidly-expanding business of registering
> > > Internet names. "
> > >
> >
> > Then you go on to say :
> >
> > > On its face this article seems to imply that pgMedia has not yet
> > > gotten a
> > > decision
> > > on
> > > it's separate filing against the IANA nor does it exclude that potential
> > > of
> > > its
> > > refilling at a, shall we say more convenient time as well...
> >
> > I don't see any such thing in the article and I see no such implications.
> > Since
> > you do, it appears you must have some inside knowledge. Hmmmm. Very
> > interesting indeed.
>
> It is not directly stated of course, however it is none the less implied.
Show me a SINGLE phrase where it is implied? It never mentions IANA or even
that there was a case remaining against IANA. Please back your accusations up
with Facts Jeff! FACTS PLEASE!
> And,
> no I have no inside information. But logical surmising should suffice. I
> am
> sure that Paul, would be much better at making this judgment for NameSpace
> than I. I am also quite sure that they are at this very moment considering
> the options, if they are wise....
You seem to know more about what PGMedia is thinking than anyone else on the
list not working for them....Gee, I wonder why that could be?......
----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 18-Mar-99
Time: 18:01:46
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts."
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977
