[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: Discuss constituencies, don't call for them to meet
- Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 05:23:22 -0500
- From: Michael Sondow <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: [dnso.discuss] Re: Discuss constituencies, don't call for them to meet
Pisanty Baruch Alejandro-FQ a écrit:
> a bit of clarification on my name first, please address me as > Alejandro Pisanty
Sure, whatever you say, Alejandro.
> the intercultural aspects of how we build family names in Mexico
> may be far above your head.
Very far. Up in space, actually. With the cybernaut astrorangers.
> Plus, blinded by anger, you need not approach
> the filigree of human relations with any delicacy.
Anger? On the contrary, I was amused by your transparent duplicity.
It's not often such a tasty morsel as yourself falls into my hands.
And for desert, I thought your self-accusation of schizo rather
> Let's come back to your
> well established, heavy-handed approach.
Oh-ho, so you're not the naive newbie that you pretend, eh? Quelle
> > You also said: "the ICANN interim board could be looking at a
> > sampling of what some of the constituencies memberships will be, if
> > they
> > tend to group as such during the F2F meetings."
> Emphasis on *could*, Mr. Sondow. It gives a tentative meaning, speaks of a
> possibility as opposed to fact, certainty, or prediction. Somewhat similar
> to "might" (verb).
Excellent. "Could" and "might". So the DNSO meetings are free to
dispense with your nonsense completely? What a relief!
> We don't know well who is going to Singapore. As you yourself mention it,
> people who can for the occasion muster money, time, interest and/or
> commitment. That's why I think intense online discussion on concrete
> issues before, during and after the meeting are indispensable and stated
> so clearly for those before;
Have indeed been doing so for many months. Tragically, without the
benefit of your invaluable input. How can we thank you for releasing
us from our ignorance, and leading us to the light, Mr. Alejandro
Pisanty? We (you and I) can only hope that the members of this list
will adopt your suggestion and begin to discuss the issues. With
your leadership, of course.
> Now: the board *could* be looking at a sample, if
> there gathers such one.
Here it comes. Yes, Mr. Pisanty Baruch?
> Not of every constituency, mind you, not
> representative, either, just a sample.
Ah-ha! The Pisanty Baruch sample. Ingenious! Irreplaceable!
> Not improbably a can of worms. But
> a sample: it may allow them and us to know better what we and them will be
> dealing with further on.
With the key word "may", is that right, Mr. Pisanty? Not really,
that is, but "may" be? A sample... to allow us to know... further
on... Do you mean like the next day, Alejandro? (May I call you
Alejandro? I feel I've known you forever.) Like the next day? When
ICANN will be deciding on the DNSO applications? A little sampling
to help them decide which proposal to accept, is that it, Alejandro?
How clever! And not against any sense of honesty or democracy, oh
no!, because only "may" be, and "could", and "might". How
deliciously subtle of you!
> Biased sample if you will
Biased sample if you will, Mr. Pisanty. Because I won't.
> (air travel will not
> become free, for sure, not for your benefit nor mine), but sample.
Sample, then. The Pisanty sample. Of those who could afford it. And
what sort of sample is that? A "may" be, "could", and "might"
sample? To let us know...further on... (may I complete it,
Alejandro?)... what bloody fools we were to have permitted this
indecent, dishonest, cowardly, selfish constituency crap at all! (Is
that alright, Dr. Pisanty Baruch?)
> In consequence, I call on you as well as on the board and on the
> attendants to Singapore to consider this sampling
You may call, Mr. Pisanty. But others may choose not to listen.
> and not to jump to any
> conclusions (like incorporating the constituencies!)
Oh, few will jump, as you put it. I can assure you. Few will even
twitch. Some may look away in disgust, but they will not jump, that
I can guarantee you.
> even if it seems
> tempting to believe that "we are all here so let's start the party".
We will resist that temptation, yes? Thanks for this good advice.
> It clearly is "discuss constituencies in Singapore" and get an idea of
> what part of them are like. Clear enough?
Oh, quite clear. Crystal clear, like the blue sky above where the
cyber rangers play. Yes. Thank you again. Brilliant!
>If you want it more clear-cut
> you'll make it useless.
I wouldn't think of asking for any more. I am so pleased with what
pearls you have been willing to bestow upon us. How could I think to
press you for more?
> All rigor is good except if it becomes mortis.
May I quote you on that?
> Maybe a lot of people in Asia thought just as much when the meetings took
> place in the Americas... maybe your perspective is geographically biased
> on this issue.
Mine? I don't think so. But, of course, one never knows.
> Where do you write from? (just curious, it seems a lot
> like from the US from the evidence of times of your messages).
I am presently in New York, if you must know. And yourself?
> Thanks for giving me
> the opportunity to clarify my position and bring it forward. Over and off.
> Work to do. Let's come back to real issues and help prepare a useful
> meeting for Singapore.
Yes sir. At once. Thank you, sir. Over and out, Alejandro Pisanty.