Re: [ga] Letter from ICANN to New.net
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
> > 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
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html