Re: Jeff Williams FAQ was Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] HMS...
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Gary Osbourne wrote:
> At 10:27 AM 06/08/02 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >thats not a reatraction. like i said - i have yet to see any retraction
> >concerning jeff. and just editing jeff out of a story is not a
> It is a retraction of previously published
> information. Which isn't to say a cache or
> archive might not have the earlier version.
oh i see. so what you are saying is that previously published information
was rewritten. thats not a retraction - at best these publications are
practicing a form of revisionist history. and i can't possibly believe
that any publication which claimed some form of journalistic integgrety
would even consider playing the game revisionist historian.
could it be possible these publications were embarrassed by some failure
within them? i assume they did their homework - thats what i expect of
the press. no less is acceptable. so i find it difficult to even
consider that any resposible editor or publisher would in any way
jeopardize their integretty by revising a published article for no better
reason then to reduce their embarrasement.
the proper proceedure for retraction is to highlight the error and then
proceed to explain it. no where have i found any such retraction
concerning jeff williams in any leading publication. indeed i feel jeff
williams desearves his own 15 minutes of fame. he seems to have the
attention of many detractors - and many claims are made one way or the
other. but non of these claims ever amount to much. nor has the press
which has quoted him often made any attempts to offer insight.
could you list the urls to articles which were later changed - i'd like to
enquire into this revisionist practice.
and i am firm in my claim - jeff is a cultural icann icon. the evidence
is clear - prominent self styled members of the dnso and ga are driving by
grapevine paying him homage. i think he's the sort of cultural icon 60
minutes should investigate.
but the real story here folks is how we spend an enternity discussing the
character of people - instead of what they are saying. jeff williams has
captivated you. your obsessed with him.
when we first ran into the jeff williams contraversy some 5 - 6 years ago
= the hunt years = my first decision was to be on a need to know basis
concerning jeff williams. and i don't need to know. i have never
investigated him, i have as is my usual duty in life not paid much
attention to the slander and liable comedy hour on jeff williams.
frankly i want to ensure that you understand my reasons why - jeff
williams is irrelevant to our reasons for being here. let's get our eyes
on the ball people - icann is the reason why were here.
now jeff williams is also very relevant to this mission. when i said he
was irrelelvant - it is with respect to our mission at .GOD and .SATAN.
as a participant to the show - he has shown a considerable understanding
of the problems at hand. that why he's interviewed so often by the press.
he knows what he's talking about. does he live in a silo? as far as i'm
concerned he could live on mars! i know he has a lovely accent and can
usually give you the inside scoop on a few icanners. he even knows where
ester lives - in case i have to send flowers.
he's an asset. thats for sure. now - does he lead a core army of 128K -
or is he the advance scout for a massive alien invasion from pluto. well
so far i have not seen any proof to the contrary - just allegations from
lame brained people who don't have anything better to do then contribute
to the general noise of the conference with all this jeff williams icon
it bad enough i have to follow endliss jibbersih concerning the dns in
these conferences without having to revisit the jeff williams society
announcements which come from you people. i've seen it all already.
i think the press should start doing it's job and you should appeal for
proper retractions - i'd like to see their explanations.
> >a proper retraction is when the news source intentionally writes an
> >article which retracts jeff as a credible source and says why it did such
> >a thing.
> Agreed. That is a proper retraction. Proving
> only that one should be skeptical of the online
> press as well, particularily as information can
> be retracted more easily and less transparently
> than recalling and re-editing all copies of a
> newspaper, for example.
ya but i don't like that. i have noticed over the years that newspapers
and other media sources have been getting sloopy. and there's no excuse
for it. i have not seen a investigative reporter in years in the wild. i
think they are a dying breed.
i'm not surprised that media would be reduced to this sloopy form of
retraction - it's lazy and an improper method - as it is prudent to inform
so i am very serious in seeing a list of urls where jeff williams was
on a more serious note - if the press is wrong in considering jeff
williams a credible source - as you seem prone to argue, then we can well
imagine the dog's breakfast icann has made of the reporting in general.
certainly the legal community has wandered down the garden path to icann
without bother to check the facts. and it shows. recently on the eu list
Patrizzio a literary scholar gave a glowing account of the merits in a
legal argument developed by some lawyers concerning icann. it was all
based on the premise that icann is a monopoly in root. a clearly false
premise - but non the less a perfect example of the misinformation
concerning root control. anyone who knows root knows it is controlled at
it's endpoints - user level. so what a shock to see governments so
and the same misinformation applies to much of the media - they simply
propagate icann's misinformation as do lawyers and other participants.
> One does come to learn,
> or fails at one's peril, which online news and
> other sources of information are more credible,
> and more trustworthy. You're a prankster Joe, so
> one must be wary of you. ICANN is also well down
> that spectrum, Jeff Williams is near the bottom. -g
well ... prankster ??? maybe - i know the program. if you believe richard
sexton ... who said simon higgs heard that someone at the canary
conference called me the most dangerous man in communications .. yada yada
.. well i know that program too.
there are many programs in the joe baptista programming rainbow - so i
have no doubt the message has many flavours - but it's still the same
message regardless of taste.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html