Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Oh no Jeff; Kent is even more ridiculous than you suggest.

I will follow your rebuttal with my own.

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Kent and all assembly members,
>
> Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 06:48:42PM -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> > > A telling presumption exhibited here: if the "protocol community"
> > > doesn't like something, ICANN should dump it.
> >
> > Yes.  That is the same presumption you would use to say "if heart
> > surgeons think a procdure is dangerous, dump it".
>
>   The problem with this argument is that the Protocol Community is
> a rapidly growing community, and that not such presumption can be accurately
>
> determined at this time, not even within the IETF as you well know from
> the Possion list discussions of late.
>

Yes and I am writing this post as a ghost because your surgeons were quite
certain of my demise yet I write this post.  You and Walsh should study the
possibility of a life form on Pluto together.  Your isolationist views give
lawyers - doctors and especially American a bad name( I imagine you two cruise
Paris together with plaid shorts, dark socks and cameras and yell at shopkeepers
to shutup and speak english)

> >
> > >  However, the
> > > Internet does not exist for the benefit of the "protocol community"
> > > or ICANN; those two entities exist for the benefit of Internet
> > > users.
> >
> > Right.  Medicine doesn't exist for the benefit of doctors.  But if
> > doctors tell us something is a bad idea, we generally listen.
>
>   This comment is an obvious logical fallacy of  "Glittering Generalities",
> Kent.  I don't know anyone that "Generally Listens" to any doctor.
> And few wise individuals seek at least a second opinion.
>

Bull---- My father who has more credentials in medicine than this list has
members and my mother who as a Nurse angel of mercy has saved more lives and sat
on more boards than Kent has hankies would tell you that being sick is a bad
idea and any cure is a great idea.  Kent seems to like illness as opposed to
cure.

>
> >  If we
> > got practically universal agreement among doctors that a procedure was a
> > bad idea, we should almost certainly dump it.
>
>   But this rarely happens.  In addition protocol development is not
> comparable to medical procedure development.
>
>

Tell that to Ms. Nightingale and Mengele and Salk and Pasteur  You are simply a
fool here and you hurt God's gift of healing.  Don't make me mention Mother
Theresa and Ghandi and Buddha and Christ.

> >
> >
> > The problem is protocol engineering really is a species of "rocket
> > science"* -- it takes a long time to really understand the issues.
>
>   In a few instances this MAY be true.  In others it is not.  As such
> this is also a example of committing the logical fallacy of "Glittering
> Generalities".  As such, as an argument it is fallacious.
>

You forget you are our servant and we the people are not yours.  The Internet is
our tool and not your sword!

>
> >  And,
> > despitewhat you hear, most of the participants on these lists really
> > aren't rocket scientists of the proper variety.
>
>   I would tend to agree.  Others mileage may vary.  None the less
> I am of the "Proper Variety".
>
>

No we are dot commoners who you have or should have sworn to protect honor and
obey.


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html