RE: [wg-c] S/K principles

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I agree with Eric's point here. It should be noted that if the WG-C adopts
these principles, we adopt them on our terms, not the original authors. Of
course, their efforts are appreciated.

Rod


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Eric
> Brunner
> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 11:21 PM
> To: Jonathan Weinberg
> Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; brunner@world.std.com
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] S/K principles
>
>
> Jon,
>
> When I raised the issue Philip claimed competition with .com was simply
> not possible. Mind, his offer of proof was assertion. If he's turned on
> the issue, fine, if he hasn't ... that's a problem for people who find
> some sense of accomplishment or comfort in S/K, at least for those who
> are so inclined and attempting to find some mechanism to competition with
> the current monopoly.
>
> Next I suggest you do Philip the considerable kindness of pushing him
> out the closest available window. Your final attempt at the restatement
> of S/K came close to being comprehensible, and Philip's sojourn away has
> not improved his comprehensibility or given him the modest wisdom to be
> grateful for the assistence you've provided.
>
> If he hadn't popped back like a discarded bait frog from the dark pond of
> WG-B, I'd have applied your last rendition of S/K to NAA and explained how
> close to something useful I thought you'd got. However, he's
> running the S/K
> show, so it would only annoy him and confuse everyone to address "W/K".
>
> I'm sorry there is so little time, and so much of it has been
> spent so very
> badly, but seriously, as an opponent of S/K, the best version of
> it I've yet
> seen was _not_ written by Philip.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>