Nice of you to link to an article and blog that one disgruntled employee wrote. Of course the negative information helps you forward the points you are trying to make in the article.
Since I have been doing business on the web since 1995 and have one person who did this, I’d say that is not a bad track record.
Your pointing out of that negative information is a pretty cheap way to try to make your point.
I notice you didn’t bother linking to archives that show my participation in the ICANN process over the years or the fact that I run a real missing children’s organization where I have personally helped to find more than 80 missing children.
No mention of the fact that I am not doing this to make money. Those who know me already know this. Perhaps you’ve never done something to get policy changed rather than just to make money. I don’t know.
I’ve been an activist for a long time. ICANN does not listen to anything said in public forums or mailing lists. Other action needs to be taken.
In addition to that I do a little more than just run a blog for hire service, which you phrased that way in another attempt at making me appear as a fringe element of some sort.
You say you aren’t a lawyer, then go on to try and discredit the legal merits of the lawsuit as if you were.
Since the law firm in question has won a lot of cases involving consumer protection in the past, I’ll let them give me legal advice rather than you. I’m sure you will understand as soon as you look past your own ego.
You did actually miss the point of the lawsuit and ICANN’s inclusion in it altogether, but since your goal was misinformation and to discredit, then it really doesn’t matter.
Do you consider self-importance a flaw in your character or an attribute?
I cannot comment directly about the details or merits of the case. I wish I could so that I could try get you to do a more than just writea narrow opinion based on one point of view. Reply
Original post by submitnews@thewhir.com (Web Hosting’s Premier Daily News) and software by Elliott Back
