Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] Fw: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

2016-03-11 Thread ripedenis
HI Randy My last comment on this thread (probably) The position he stated was not conducive with his experience. He offered no supporting arguments, just an emotive comment that was highly critical of something I developed. It is like me saying the development of a market for selling IP add

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

2016-03-11 Thread Brian Nisbet
There is a difference and I think, as has been pointed out, that the discussion is veering a little too much into ad hominem. So please, everyone, as always, robust discussion, but please discuss the topic, not people. Thanks all. Brian Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager HEAnet Limited, I

[anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

2016-03-11 Thread ripedenis
Sorry I hit reply instead of reply-all... - Forwarded Message - From: "ripede...@yahoo.co.uk" To: Sander Steffann Sent: Friday, 11 March 2016, 17:06 Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 Hi Sander I was not making any decision just

Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

2016-03-11 Thread Sander Steffann
Hello Denis, > Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user > inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of > 'poor' does not carry much weight. Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's contribution doe