On Sat, 17 Apr 1999 10:05:34 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rik and all,
>
> Be my guest. However it still does not delineate the facts at all....
>
>Point being is that you can carry this stuff to extremes. As it is
>in this instance (There have been several others on this list on
>this before, the last one started by Chris Ambler I believe), was
>started by JCB here.
>
Point being this, Jeff. Most people on this list would be willing to
provide even JUST ONE offer of proof they are who they say they are.
JUST ONE would be sufficient. Their companies are either listed in
the telephone directories, have websites, are corporations easily
verified (amazing how easy it is to verify a corporation when they
really exist), are sole proprietors, etc.
Whereas you won't provide even ONE, for yourself or INEG.
Not even ONE.
You claim INEG holds domains, please give us some examples.
ANY offer of proof would be nice. You've never been willing to
provide any.
That is the difference here, and that is why it DOES delineate the
facts, and why we have no need to carry this to extremes. No one is
asking for extreme proof. Just something real simple, and real
public.
And you won't even provide that.
--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
NSI & Internic news http://www.dso.net/internic/
