RE: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings)

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
|> Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2001 3:39 PM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org
|> Cc: [ga-roots]
|> Subject: Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings

|> > |> us that have been around for awhile and have read your nonsense are
|> > |> quite use to this as a norm for you.
|> >
|> > Can't attack the content so attack the person eh Jeff
|>
|>   Not at all Darryl.  Are you having reading comprehension problems?
|>
|>   I said (See above) that your CONTENTION was incorrect.  Or did
|> you miss that part?  That is a direct attack of your argument.
|> A precursor
|> if you will...

Saying something is incorrect but not showing any valid reasons for the
belief and then launching a personal attack is not a valid argument style.


|> > |> >  They are not alternative roots and continueing to call
|> > |> > them such is conveying a degree of legitimacy to what
|> they are doing.
|> > |>
|> > |>   Yes they are not Aternitive Roots, but "Competitive Roots" or
|> > |> "Inclusive Root structures".
|> >
|> > No, they are not competitive or inclusive, if anything, they
|> are rogue.
|>
|>   You have YOUR opinion.  Millions of others don't seem to agree with
|> it however.  RFC's do not either.  But this is a minor factor, of course
|> as RFC's are requests for comments nothing more...

Millions of others would appear to agree with my opinion and interpretation
of the the relevant documents including RFC's.  They demonstate their
agreement by following the guidelines and best practices the Internet runs
under.   I only see limited percentages not agreeing.

|>
|>   But many including New.net's, ORSC's ect., are not outside of the
|> legacy root structure.  They simply set on top of it.  Hence they are
|> "Competitive or Inclusive Roots" by definition and by operation.

They can't be both under your definition.  They are outside of the legacy
root structure although attempt to profit from an association with it.
They use the Internet addressing schema and as such they are not on top of
the legacy root system but a rogue element within it.


|>   Incorrect again.  But of course you don't seem to understand what
|> a public network is or is comprised of it seems.  That is not surprising
|> however.

Saying something is incorrect without validating that viewpoint is not
constructive and neither is the continued personal references.  It only
highlights the inadequency of your arguments.

A public network is not one under the control of an individual although it
will as a rule contain such linkages.  The inclusion of any additional
private network into a public network requires the private network to
conform to the rules and guidelines of the public network.  That is not
what we are seeing with the rogue name spaces.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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