Jay,
You wrote:
>
> This is right out of the Dave Crocker
> play book. Try and discredit a 20,000
> word summary, by focusing on a single
> statement.
>
I believe there was nothing wrong in Werner's request.
If a statement is believed to be incorrect, it is perfectly normal to ask
for clarification (or modification).
If it is a detail, and not a substantial affirmation, it will be easily
corrected without losing the sense of the other 19.990 words.
> Come on guys, you can do better than this!
>
> Ken, in the interest of moving on, I suggest
> that you change one word in your summary:
>
> > > "Jon Postel showed his displeasure with the situation by
> > > redirecting the root servers, *potentially* destablizing world
> > > Internet traffic."
>
OTOH, if you persist in affirming that the action has (or potentially could
have) destabilized the world Internet traffic, you are making of this detail
a substantial element of the report, therefore discrediting it because a
substantial affirmation is false.
In fact, if the change of the reference root would (potentially or actually)
destabilize Internet traffic worldwide, there would be a serious problem
with the architecture of the Internet.
It does not do any good to your cause to try to paint Jon Postel as a
"potential destabilizer" of the Internet (and to complain afterwards that
the world's press is biased because it refuses to follow you down this
path).
Regards
Roberto
