On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Gordon Cook wrote:
> >
> > Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
>
> > please count to
> > ten...
>
> Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
> discussion.
Same here ;-)
>I guess I've s
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
> please count to
> ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions.
> please count to
> ten...
Did it sound like an argument? I thought we were having a friendly
discussion. I guess I've still got more work to do on my style. Now,
where's Kent Crispin...
That was a good one Jeff, made me laugh. About the only thing your
posts are good for.
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:49:09 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>William and all,
>
> You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
>will or the where with all to exercise t
William and all,
You have the potential for the necessary wisdom, but neither the
will or the where with all to exercise that potential. Some day you might.
But it won't be today, and judging from your continued activities of
making false aspersions on Michael, Gordon, Dr. Lisse, myself and
ot
On Sat, 03 Jul 1999 17:39:05 +0100, Jeff Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All,
>
> Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation WIlliam,
>is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response to Gordon
>falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't
All,
Gordon and William, It is obvious to most that YOUR reputation
WIlliam,
is certainly in question. I would say that this post in response
to Gordon
falls into the category of People in glass houses shouldn't throw
stones
A word to the wise should be sufficient... However in
WIlliam'
On Sat, 3 Jul 1999 19:52:10 -0400, Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Michael Sondow and Jim Dixon, i respect both your opinions. I don't think
>there is any guarantee at this point that any of us who are desirous
>bringing ICANN to heel is 100% right in our assertions. The problem for
>s
