Stop trying to appear to be a legitimate participant.
You are a phoney.
You are a fraud.
You are a liar.
You are an imposter.
You are not a CEO.
There is no INEG.
And these are just a handful of the things that have been proven about
you, not to mention that SMU has proven you are not a graduate of
their fine institution, as you claim, and that indeed, you have no law
degree from them.
Your phone number rings in an extended stay hotel, and usually goes to
their voice mail system.
So stop trying to pretend to be a participant, and I suggest that
anyone who is engaging with this person in dialog is doing nothing
more than giving him a legitimacy he doesn't deserve, you really
should not respond to him on substantive threads, it only encourages
him to continue his fraud and lies. I should also comment that I only
see one person doing this.
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 21:41:01 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ed and all,
>
>Ed Gerck wrote:
>
>> Jeff Williams wrote:
>>
>> > Ed and all,
>> >
>> > Ed Gerck wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > > However, and this was perhaps another obscure point in my example with .com --
>even
>> > > if some "Router Resource" disagrees with me and decides to go head on and
>accept
>> > > domains for DNS servers which conflict with anyone else, that would have no
>effect
>> > > whatsoever on the operational part of the Internet. Each user controls which
>> > > Router Resources they want to use (eg, NSI, SuperRoot, ORSC, etc.) -- the
>decision
>> > > to trust is entirely in the user's hands, where the risk is.
>> >
>> > This is of course one course of process. However would these TLD's that you
>> > indirectly refer to be globally "SEEN" without special convention?
>>
>> Not my problem and actually, my point -- that is why I consider them A Bad Idea,
>just to
>> beat that dead horse again.
>
> Agreed, and the gist of my original suggestion to you with respect to TM
>issues.
>
>> That is also why they are self-defeating as a business model, to a large extent.
>However,
>> they can be useful in some special applications (eg, as I have mentioned in another
>URL).
>
> Yes indeed they can and indeed are in private networks or subscribed
>networks (eg Portals from a legacy root based DN/web page). This however
>does not provide much usefulness in adding additional TLD's for which
>expansion of the name space can be achieved as is perceived to be
>desired/needed by many.
>
>>
>>
>> > To
>> > that extent intersubjectively, would they be useful as to availability to all?
>>
>> That is it -- *exactly** because they are not available to all, they must remain
>> intersubjective within a small group, thus not a large threat to the overall
>Internet.
>
> True, and a such not very useful in a largess sense.
>
>>
>>
>> > > Which just defuses
>> > > the need for worldwide regulation on this matter -- though there may be problems
>> > > with trademarks issues in specific jurisdictions (for example, publicly selling
>> > > pepsi.com) for those that choose to ignore the problems ;-)
>> >
>> > In ignoring those problems to which you refer, Ed, opens up legal
>> > exposure to those that choose to do so.
>>
>> Yes, and much thanks for simplying my long phrase. That is why I suggested NOT to
>ignore
>> them -- as my phrase above says: "though there may be problems... for those that
>choose to
>> ignore the problems".
>
> I am not sure what you are referring to as "Them" here. Could you clarify?
>If by them, you are meaning TLD's within an IntrAnet or Extranet, than I
>can concur with your point here entirely. If not than, it is likely you are
>mistaken. Please clarify, if you would. >;)
>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Ed Gerck
>>
>>
>
>Regards,
--
William X. Walsh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
NSI & Internic news http://www.dso.net/internic/
