[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [wg-c] NSI as a minority owned business.
This is my last post for this week-end ... I have work to do ... yet another
a) I didn't expand the audience ... you did. Further, you did so with
insufficient data to the new audience. That was most impolite.
b) If you'd REALLY read the message, instead of laughing at it, you'd see
what I was saying. Your arrogance is showing. That you don't descern a point
is an issue of perspective, on your part.
c) I am getting REAL tired of your continuous public ad hominems. I only
have a measured amount of patience for post-adolescent
pseudo-intellectualism. I was there once and recognise it when I see it. I
grew up, why don't you?
d) I won't let you control my responses. You manipulate the messages you
respond to in order to fabricate a point, using the poor excuse of bad
connectivity to somehow cover the obvious.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
> Behalf Of Eric
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 4:57 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] NSI as a minority owned business.
> I'd really miserable connectivity yesterday evening, an
> artifact of the
> high winds from a nor'easter and its affects on the local
> ISP. I didn't
> add myself to the cc'd (highly uncharacteristic) and failed to delete
> wg-c from the cc'd (going over the 2-per-day rule). Sigh.
> On the bright side Roeland I didn't let the initial phrase
> survive. I was writing to a friend, someone who doesn't need to know
> anything about you. Intent however didn't exactly match effect.
> John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> NSI won (a long time ago) a competitive bid to run com/net/org
> where at the end of that bid, everything would be returned to
> NSF. NSI has fought a quite succesful fight to manage to hang in
> there despite the odds, outwitting a lot of attempts to get the
> thing re-bid on a competitive basis at the end of the term.
> You (Roeland) replied quoting this specific text:
> Got news for you, NSI won that bid by default. Who was bidding
> against them?
> Now you can expand on your initial assertion that the initial bidding
> process which resulted in the transfer of the NIC contract to GSI, now
> NSI, was non-competitive by a variety of means. You and I more or less
> coverd that on the previous one when you made a remarkable claim:
> NSI was started by academics and scientists...
> I'm personally disinterested in how you go about this, the simplist
> way, admission of error, appears to be out of the question.
> Doing the point-by-point
> para #1
> 1. mail ettiquette - go bother Bob, who wrote the follow-up, he didn't
> clutter up a question with your prose, I didn't think it up to the
> worth reading twice test either.
> 2. ICANN and your job - not relevant
> para #2
> 3. looks as if you want to collapse the 10 years between the event
> Broomfield wrote about, and your reply. Takes handwaving as we are
> dealing with the perennial "for-profit must.must.must prevail"
> lemmings-in-heat question, but feel free to make any claim
> about the
> legal character of current events -- just about anything flies.
> paras #3 & 4
> 4. i don't actually discern a point, just a narrative that leaves you
> the last man standing holding the plan that for all I know, the NC
> and ICANN Board are simply dying to read.
> para #5
> 5. not relevant except to the narrative of the prior paras
> para #6
> 6. not relevant
> I hope your writing such a long, and oddly constucted letter
> serves some
> useful purpose, but you'd get less exercise if you'd simply
> stop writing
> NIC History by Dummies.