Re: [ICANN-EU] ICANN Q&A Forum

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Griffini and all,

Griffini Giorgio wrote:

> In order to avoid to place unnecessary noise on this list this
> will be my last msg on this subject.
> For those who like to continue the discussion pls send comments privately
> to me and if tones and mood allows I will continue to discuss it.

 I sense your frustration.  However ignoring something does not solve
anything.

>
>
> > > To continue such discussion (with me, almost) you are required to convince
> > > me that a 'semantic meaning' applied to any kind value in any kind field of a
> > > network packet has a _real_ influence on _technical_ stability of the Internet.
> >
> >   This much is generally known already.  Hence I don't feel it is necessary to
> > belabor this point.  It could be overly simply stated though that "bad or
> > incompatible packet's do not make for a stable internet."....
> >
> > >
> > > (That is, looking from your supposed side, why if the hardware ID allows to
> > > track down to a specified individual or not this may endanger the 'technical'
> > > stability of the Internet in a way , we say,  that it will prevents protocols and
> > > interoperability from working)
> >
> >   Stability is in part directly related to privacy.  Without a expectable level
> > of privacy, the market place will not trust the use of the internet long, people
> > will be damaged in various ways, and business on the internet would be lost...
> > I think that sums it up in very brief!  >;)
>
> That means you seem have missed what what I mean for 'semantic meaning'.
> Anyway I will not ask anymore because I see you were not talking about
> 'technical stability' so I still have to understand what is your real point (if
> technical or whatever). But I'm low on fuel to try to discover this so please
> don't ask me to do this.

  Yes I was talking about technical stability.  Possibly your interpretation is
one of your own making or desire?

>
>
> > > Please avoid such kind answers. They do not allow for considering
> > > continuing a discussion a worthy effort.
> >
> >  I am sorry you took offense.  You sensitivity seems to be showing rather
> > strongly here.   You interpretation was of course your own, and not based
> > upon my intent or my couching of my statement....
>
> I'm still proud to be able to have my own interpretation of any topic.

  Good for you!  >;)

> If this
> interpretation is wrong or not it is appropriate or less I think will fall under my
> matters at all so if you think I've got it wrong you should think , I think , that
> is maybe possibly also due by your fault in explaining. But I'm not pushing
> you to think so because I see that even such simple behaviour seems not
> belonging to you.

  Simple behavior?  I responded to this thread concerned and curious
as to why Alf did not wish to respond to Jim's question.  It was fairly
obvious to me that it was due to lack of "Clue".  You responded than
indicating that indeed Alf may not have the technical knowledge that
was in question.  This not only confirmed what was already obvious,
but also puts into question the qualifications of Alf, who I am sure is
a very nice fellow, into serious question.

>
>
> > >
> > > (Unless, of course, they are exactly intented to avoid such discussions)
> >
> >   I NEVER intend to avoid these types of discussions....  Rather I
> > believe that encouraging them is healthy for all concerned....
> >
>
> Maybe yes, but please keep in mind that if you keep such kind of tones you
> will not get so much trust in your opinions.

  Many already do.  And I am content with that.  However your suggesting
otherwise is your prerogative to be sure, but puts into question your motive.

> Howewer these are not my
> concerns and you are adult enough , I think, to elaborate on this by your own
> if you really want to.
>
> > > >
> > > You are allowed to think so, but I think you underestimate the 'field' value.
> > > The 'field'  give more credibility to any 'spoken-only' opinion despite on how
> > > much such opinion is being believed wrong or whatever.
> >
> >   Very much agreed.   And in part, my motivation for my previous comments.
> >
> This seems being told in in contrast you were talking about 'field' testing.
> (just a note that do not deserve any further comments by you)
>
> > > BTW. I think it is a real pity to see all such time and energy devoted to
> > > tarnish / attack any people instead of maybe properly devote such kind
> > > energies to build up a different position and have it supported by consensus.
> > > I know I have to live with such kind positions but I think it is any way a waste
> > > of energies.
> >
> >   Whom have I attacked.  No one to my knowledge.  I have expressed
> > a concern to a lack of and answer that seems to translate to lack of
> > "Clue"...  Of course you have a right to you opinion, as do others....
> >
>
> I'll take your words as a promise.

  No I promised nothing, I only made a simple well excepted observation.

>
> Please note that I'm currently building my very own opinion that you do not
> deserve my efforts in discussing my opinions with you because I feel we will
> just waste time and energy.

  You are entitled to your opinion.  And if you choose to do so that is fine.
However your arrival at this seemingly new decision will be a matter of
public record, and likely quoted from time to time in these reply's on
this thread...

>
> So please do not insist with same tones, if you really respect other people
> opinions.

  I live in america.  Freedom of speech guaranteed in our US Constitution.
Many fought and died for those rights and to protect them.  Some of these
that did so to protect them, I knew.  So if my "Tone" is now what you would
like than that is just too bad...

>
>
> Best regards
> Giorgio Griffini

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 112k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 9236 fwd's to home ph#
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208