The following email arrived in eNom ETP inboxes today:Dear eNom reseller,

.US has made a dramatic change in their policy saying (in part):

"The United States Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA") has recently completed its review of "proxy" or anonymous domain registration services by .us Accredited Registrars. At the conclusion of this review, NTIA directed NeuStar to phase out the offering of such services by Registrars or by any of its partners or resellers and to ensure that complete and accurate WHOIS data is provided for any existing registrations in .us."

Although we disagree with this policy, we will comply and will require our resellers and sub-resellers to make the necessary changes. Therefore, we will prohibit the offering of eNom's ID Protect or similar services to .US registrations. This policy takes effect immediately and ONLY applies to .US registrations.

The service will continue to be provided for existing .US ID protect customers until their ID protect expiration date or January 26, 2006, whichever comes first.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

eNom Technology Support & Partner ServicesI have no quarrel with eNom for assuming this position and taking this action. After all, if eNom wishes to continue registering .US domains, it must comply. I think there are probably constitutional (1st Amendment) issues, though... but I'd need to ponder that a while before I would be willing to comment.

It will be interesting to see what organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org), and others similar, have to say about it.

Of course, it's important to remember that anonymous domain registration, generally, is kinda' pointless except, maybe, for helping to prevent spam... or maybe just easing a domain owner's queasy feeling when s/he thinks about his/her personal/contact data being "out there" in public WHOIS records. But if you read carefully the TOS of virtually all of the anonymous registration services you'll find that, at the mere threat of a subpoena or a search warrant, nearly all of them will knuckle-under and happily fork-over the true identity of the registrant without so much as a wimper. As a free speech protection tool, anonymous registration has, thus far, been a bust. The only truly effective anonymous registration service would be one that wouldn't automatically cave-in to legal threats; and would be willing to appear (by its attorney... for an additional fee, of course) on behalf of hidden registrants to quash subpoenas and/or to challenge warrants, etc. But that's another issue for another day, I guess.

Just FYI: One of the Internet's foremost experts on this matter is tech attorney Wendy Seltzer -- at least one of whose comments from back in 2003 regarding this matter may be viewed by clicking here (http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2003/04/10/until_theres_anonymous_domain_name_registration_.html).

I dont really see the big deal personally - its like having your name in the phone book.

Even though you may also have your name on the do not call list you will still get solicitational phone calls - but only during dinner time - and that really hasnt changed that. Although I must admit the threat of fines has taken the frequency down quite a bit.

All in all I dont predict any kind of major "change" or "shift" because of this new policy - personally I think it has something to do with bush and the administrations seemingly anti-privacy legislations as of late, but thats just one conspiracy theorists opinion :)

Roughly how many .US registered domains out there are really
using privacy service for this? 1-2%, perhaps?

I wonder if the registrars will refund their customers for this,
especially those who just got the privacy service from their chosen
provider recently like a day or so ago.

But registrars willing to appear on behalf of registrants if they're
served subpoenas meant for the registrants themselves or what
have you? Nah, they're not that stupid, and no way would they
bother with all the legal hulabaloo from who knows where and
what for only $8 a year per domain.

Some services like protectfly do not even allow the service to be used on most cctld's that have restrictions(.ca, .de , .us) which is a pretty good thing namely due to this .us ruling

Originally posted by HostCheap.us.com
...personally I think it has something to do with bush and the administrations seemingly anti-privacy legislations as of late, but thats just one conspiracy theorists opinion :) I normally don't condone conspiracy theorists' notions, but you're probably closer on this one than I'd prefer were true.

Originally posted by davezan
Roughly how many .US registered domains out there are really using privacy service for this? 1-2%, perhaps?I'm sure it's a very small number, as you suggest. But do we deprive dissenters of anonymity (one of the most common methods by which the most controversial of dissent may be safely expressed) just because they're in the minority? The Bill of Rights was not created to protect the majority. Majority protection is easy... as is expressing an opinion when most people agree with you. The 1st Amendment -- as well as most of the rest of the Bill of Rights -- was created to ensure that even the least of us would be afforded the same right to speak out as everyone else. Sadly, the cold reality of things is often that the only way for the most controversial of opinions to be freely expressed without there being inappropriate consequences for those expressing them is for said opinions to be expressed anonymously -- or, given the ease with which things can be traced on the Internet, at least as anonymously as technologically possible. Anonymous or proxied domain name registration affords a measure of anonymity for those wishing to exercise their constitutional right to express minority opinions. How ironic it is that the ccTLD which is assigned to the allegedly most free nation on the planet -- the .US ccLD -- is now depriving its users of the right to be anonymous. It has a chilling effect on free speech... a notion which I'm quite certain many people will either be unable to grasp, or will simply refuse to do so.

Originally posted by davezan
I wonder if the registrars will refund their customers for this, especially those who just got the privacy service from their chosen provider recently like a day or so ago.In eNom's case, that would appear to be a non-issue, for the most part. Existing proxied .US name registrants using eNom's "ID Protect" feature will be able to keep that service through January of 2006... which I would think would be close enough to the anniversary of any .US domains registered in the last "day or so ago" that refunds would be a non-issue. On a pro-rata basis, we're talking about pennies even at eNom's retail price of $29.95/year. Considering that the filing fee even in small claims court is considerably higher (many time higher, actually, in most jurisdictions) than the $29.95 eNom retail price of a .US domain, I hardly think anyone is going to sue eNom for a mere pro-rata fraction thereof.

Originally posted by davezan
But registrars willing to appear on behalf of registrants if they're served subpoenas meant for the registrants themselves or what have you? Nah, they're not that stupid, and no way would they bother with all the legal hulabaloo from who knows where and what for only $8 a year per domain.No registrar ever would... nor did I mean to suggest that they should. All I was saying is that proxied registration is fairly meaningless other than to stop spam from those who harvest email addresses from WHOIS databases; or to make a registrant feel less exposed in public WHOIS records, because for anything more serious than that (say, for example, the presentation of a subpoena from a private party or a warrant from a law enforcement agency) all existing providers of proxied regsitration will, persuant to their TOS, cave-in and provide the registrant's true identity. When I expressed the opinion that in order to make it truly meaningful, the provider of the proxied service would have to be willing to appear by counsel on behalf of the registrant to attempt to quash subpoenas or strike down warrants. And I was crystal clear that that service would have to be provided for an additional fee since, as you correctly point out, no one would do that for their profit on an $8 domain name. My vision involved a private party providing the proxied registration service, not a registrar.

Originally posted by dmaven
Some services like protectfly do not even allow the service to be used on most cctld's that have restrictions(.ca, .de , .us)...That's certainly RegisterFly's (http://www.registerfly.com/protectfly/index.php) right. It, like any other registrar, is free to offer or not offer any legal service it wishes as long as it does not violate any agreements it has with the various registries whose gTLDs and ccTLDs it sells. But this situation is different. In this case, the ICANN-approved provider/overseer of the entire .US registry/namespace (NeuStar (http://www.neustar.us)) is now expressly prohibiting any of its resellers -- which includes both ICANN-approved registrars as well as their resellers -- from providing proxied registry services... thereby striking a huge blow to anonymity on the Internet; and, in turn, having a chilling effect (http://www.chillingeffects.org/johndoe/) on free speech.

I would argue that, in addition to the chilling effects that this sort of thing has on anonymity and, therefore, free speech, there is another thing with which this policy change interferes that I believe no court in the land would permit to be interfered with:The right of any person to appoint an agent and attorney-in-fact to represent his/her interest in nearly any matter -- including acting in his/her stead for the purpose of protecting his/her anonymity (so long as no law is being broken by his/her so doing; and no fraud of any kind is being perpetrated).The essential elements of "agency" are taught in the second or third year of every law school program in this country -- and most other countries, as well. It's basic probate law and part of the uniform commercial code... and is inviolate. Under the law of every single state, I may appoint as my agent and attorney-in-fact (usually, but not always, via a power-of-attorney document) to any person or legal entity -- be said person/entity an attorney-at-law or not -- to represent me in any and all matters as though said person/entity were me (with the nearly sole exception of appearing for me in court unless by an attorney-at-law hired either by me or by my agent pursuant to our agency agreement), to wit:Califonia Code Section §§ 2295. An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons. Such representation is called agency.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2296. Any person having capacity to contract may appoint an agent, and any person may be an agent.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2304. An agent may be authorized to do any acts which his principal might do, except those to which the latter is bound to give his personal attention.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2305. Every act which, according to this Code, may be done by or to any person, may be done by or to the agent of such person for that purpose, unless a contrary intention clearly appears.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2307. An agency may be created, and an authority may be conferred, by a precedent authorization or a subsequent ratification.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2308. A consideration is not necessary to make an authority, whether precedent or subsequent, binding upon the principal.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2309. An oral authorization is sufficient for any purpose, except that an authority to enter into a contract required by law to be in writing can only be given by an instrument in writing.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2315. An agent has such authority as the principal, actually or ostensibly, confers upon him.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2318. Every agent has actually such authority as is defined by this Title, unless specially deprived thereof by his principal, and has even then such authority ostensibly, except as to persons who have actual or constructive notice of the restriction upon his authority.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2319. An agent has authority:
1. To do everything necessary or proper and usual, in the ordinary course of business, for effecting the purpose of his agency; and,
2. To make a representation respecting any matter of fact, not including the terms of his authority, but upon which his right to use his authority depends, and the truth of which cannot be determined by the use of reasonable diligence on the part of the person to whom the representation is made.

Califonia Code Section §§ 2320. An agent has power to disobey instructions in dealing with the subject of the agency, in cases where it is clearly for the interest of his principal that he should do so, and there is not time to communicate with the principal.And the instrument most often used to convey the powers of agency is the "Power of Attorney," to wit:Califonia Code Section §§ 4120. A natural person having the capacity to contract may execute a power of attorney.

Califonia Code Section §§ 4123. (a) In a power of attorney under this division, a principal may grant authority to an attorney-in-fact to act on the principal's behalf with respect to all lawful subjects and purposes or with respect to one or more express subjects or purposes. The attorney-in-fact may be granted authority with regard to the principal's property, personal care, or any other matter.and the above are but a few of the many places in California Code where various forms of agency are defined/described and empowered.

I cited California code, above, because that's where I happen to be right now; but I could have found similar or nearly identical language in the codes of any of the other 49 states. It is a universal concept in U.S. civil and probate law and procedure, applied similarly pretty much everywhere.

When an ICANN-approved registrar's reseller happens also to be a .US ccTLD registrant's agent and attorney-in-fact, then the new NeuStar policy tortiously interferes with that rightful, statutorily-authorized and completely legal relationship between the principal (the registrant) and his/her agent and attorney-in-fact... potentially and presumptively to the detriment and harm of said principal.

Sorry, but NeuStar (or any other registry or gTLD/ccTLD overseer) doesn't get to effectively achieve that sort of tortious interference -- even if only unintentionally -- by means of its unilateral policy change; nor would any ICANN-approved registrar and reseller of NeuStar's product (i.e., the .US ccTLD) be permitted to do so while claiming as a defense that it is simply implementing and enforcing NeuStar's revised policy. No court, I dare say, once fully advised in the premises, would permit such a thing; and both NeuStar, and any ICANN-approved registrar (such as eNom, for example... but there are many others) that is authorized to resell NeuStar's .US ccTLD, would, in my opinion, be exposing themselves to significant liability -- even if same is expressly prohibited by or exempted in their TOS -- if they attempted to deprive any reseller from entering into an agency agreement with a principal registrant for purposes of proffering said agent's identification and contact data as a proxy for that of the principal registrant.

Please understand: I'm not saying that eNom is acting inappropriately by discontinuing its "ID Protect" service for domains in the .US namespace. eNom, like the aforementioned RegisterFly and its ProtectFly service, is free to offer or not offer any feature it wishes. However, for eNom or any other ICANN-approved registrar (either on its own or as an agent of NeuStar or any other registry overseer) to effectively prohibit any of its resellers from lawfully engaging in agency agreements with a principal registrants for the express purpose of protecting said registrants' privacy and ensuring their anonymity (that is, as long as no laws are being broken and/or no fraud is being perpetrated) would be actionable and, moreover, would likely result in the reseller prevailing in a court of law.

And I, for one, would just love to be the one to proves it!

In my opinion, ICANN-approved registrars like eNom need to tread very lightly in their enforcement of this policy change. They are certainly free to play it safe and to discontinue offering their own proxied registration services for names in the .US (or any other gTLD or ccTLD) namespace, as eNom is saying it will now do with its suspension of the "ID Protect" feature for that particular ccTLD. However, in my opinion, no registrar may effectively prohibit (by shutting-down the accounts of) any of its resellers who continue to offer such services themselves as long as their doing so is pursuant to a lawful agency agreement...

...as eNom's message, cited in my thread-starting post, would seem to suggest eNom is willing to do.

As a long-time eNom reseller -- one of its oldest, actually -- I hope that eNom will allow its stated disagreement with NeuStar's policy revision, as well as the argument I have made here, to cause it to think twice before doing such a thing. I encourage all other ICANN-approved registrars to do the same.

Originally posted by dmaven
...which is a pretty good thing namely due to this .us ruling.I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying, here, but, in thematic keeping with this thread, I'll quote Voltaire when I add, "...but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

That's what free speech is all about. That's, in part, what's at issue, here...

...and neither eNom, nor NeuStar, nor the The United States Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) gets to fiddle with that.

Oh, yeah... I forgot to add in my previous post -- just for reference -- that the issue of anonymity in the WHOIS database, generally, has been discussed alot: Here (http://www.icann.org/gnso/whois-tf/report-19feb03.htm) , for example... and here (http://alac.icann.org/whois/)... and, more recently, here (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/Whois-tf3-comments.htm)...

...just to name three places. There arre many others (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&safe=off&c2coff=1&domains=icann.org&q=%2Bregistration+%2Banonymous+%2Bwhois&btnG=Search&sitesearch=icann.org).

This whole anonymous registration thing, generally, is a much larger and more important issue than many give it credit for being. It should never have slipped from public consciousness in the first place, even before this most recent .US-namespace-related situation cropped-up. Hopefully this event will bring it back nearer the forefront...

...where it belongs.

You should be able to register a domain to a "representative" just as you would register a domain to yourself.
This seems like its "big government"...

Its not like I can't ask my lawyer or someone to register a domain for me, and hold it in trust or somethig.

Just use PO Box and a whois email and a phone with an answering machine. www.j2.com has online fax/voicemail service for free.

Originally posted by kohashi
Just use PO Box and a whois email and a phone with an answering machine. www.j2.com has online fax/voicemail service for free. I think you've missed the point. This isn't a question of the WHOIS record containing data at all (i.e., that the WHOIS record is complete); or that said data in said WHOIS record is accurate. That's a quantitative issue -- one that was argued extensively in these forums and elsewhere back in 2003. ICANN policy on that is well-established; and when a registrar like eNom offers to put its contact data into the WHOIS record in lieu of the true registrant's as part of its "ID Protect" product, or when GoDaddy offers to put its contact data into the WHOIS record as part of its "By Proxy"product, or when any other registrar proxies its contact data into a WHOIS record on behalf of a hidden registrant, said data is complete and accurate. I mean, such data is the true name, address, telephone number and email address of the proxy, and if anyone sends a message to it it will, by hook or by crook, get to the true hidden registrant.

This new .US matter is different; and one in which NeuStar (the .US registry) is, at the direction of a U.S. government agency (the NTIA), dictating that all .US WHOIS data must not only be complete and accurate, but it must also reflect the true identity of the registrant; that a registrant may no longer hide his identity while still making himself available for contact in the event of an emergency or legal matter, as proxied registration via products like eNom's "ID Protect" or GoDaddy's "Domains by Proxy" clearly accomplishes. And that's a decidedly qualitative issue, to be sure.

Even before we get to the issue of examining the merits, it should, generally speaking, make every free-speech-loving and privacy-valuing American very nervous whenever the U.S. Government moves from concerning itself, merely, with quantitative issues and, additionally, not only concerns itself with but flat-out dictates qualitative ones as well.

This is definitely a new wrinkle... and one that is troubling me more and more as time passes and I am able to begin to more clearly imagine and play-out in my mind all the ways that this could ultimately be very harmful for our very democracy.

Free-speech and anonymity don't go hand-in-hand on the internet all the time. By buying a domain name you are agreeing to their terms, that is your choice. You do not have to buy any domain names, especially in the .us domain name space. The fact they require you to enter accurate data reflecting who is the owner once you've agreed to their rules means nothing for liberty on the internet. I also think you have democracy and liberty confused.


(typo)

Originally posted by kohashi
The fact they require you to enter accurate data reflecting who is the owner once you've agreed to their rules means nothing for liberty on the internet. I also think you have democracy and liberty confused.

Especially when, going thru the history of the internet, the original
designers didn't really have liberty and democracy factored in. See
what happens when the government jumps in the bandwagon? ;)

On the other hand, many technological developments we've had
began in the military, right?

Originally posted by kohashi
Free-speech and anonymity don't go hand-in-hand on the internet all the time.And who decides when they do? The government? You? You're still not getting it.

Originally posted by kohashi
By buying a domain name you are agreeing to their terms, that is your choice. You do not have to buy any domain names, especially in the .us domain name space. The fact they require you to enter accurate data reflecting who is the owner once you've agreed to their rules means nothing for liberty on the internet.You need an introductory business law course. Fairness and equity need be present or the agreement is voidable. The Internet is no longer optional. Free speech limited to stapling flyers to telephone poles in the dark of night isn't free speech.

Originally posted by kohashi
I also think you have democracy and liberty confused.No, actually... I don't.

Again, nobody is making you buy a domain name. You are leasing access to it. They have a right to know exactly who is leasing what. They own it, you lease it.

You can restrict people's rights when they sign contracts, think of restrictions that businesses, schools, etc place on people. They are not government imposed and are not illegal, but you can be forbidden from doing them or face repercussions for violating them. Same applies.


Democracy has nothing to do with your rights as an individual, it is a common mistake. Liberty are your rights, democracy is majority rule. majority rule could impose such things as taking away free speech if the majority agreed. A situation like that again would be illiberal democracy.

Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Liberty
1.
1. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
2. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
3. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor. See synonyms at freedom.
2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.
4.
1. A breach or overstepping of propriety or social convention. Often used in the plural.
2. A statement, attitude, or action not warranted by conditions or actualities: a historical novel that takes liberties with chronology.
3. An unwarranted risk; a chance: took foolish liberties on the ski slopes.
5. A period, usually short, during which a sailor is authorized to go ashore.

Originally posted by kohashi
Again, nobody is making you buy a domain name.No one is making me vote, either, but I'd sure hate for people with your way of seeing things to get out there and try to so distort the intentions of our founding fathers by changing the process such that you may dictate to anyone when, how or if they may do so -- by contract or otherwise!

Originally posted by kohashi
You are leasing access to it. They have a right to know exactly who is leasing what. They own it, you lease it.Actually, there's compelling case law that successfully challenges that basic notion. Terms of Service agreements, and the "leased" (as opposed to "owned") feeling that domain ownership gives one is largely because of the functional importance of everyone being on the same technological (and not political or philosophical) page so that the system (the Internet) will work. Proxied registration, as long as the proxy can get in touch with the actual registrant when necessary so that technological problems, if any, or legal proceedings, etc., may be resolved without revealing the registrant's identity does nothing to impede that primary technological necessity. And I would argue that the privacy imperative trumps technological necessity in any case. A broken router table can be fixed. The fundamental loss of privacy and, when necessary, anonymity, cannot.

Originally posted by kohashi
You can restrict people's rights...Oh, how disturbingly easily you offer such calamity as but mere example.

Originally posted by kohashi
...when they sign contracts, think of restrictions that businesses, schools, etc place on people. They are not government imposed and are not illegal, but you can be forbidden from doing them or face repercussions for violating them. Same applies.My... how cavalierly you seem to view human rights; how willing you appear to be to induce others to sign them away so that your likes may ultimately have what they want, regardless of the cost in human terms; and how low on the totem pole of things important to you human rights would appear to be. In a post-9/11 world where such as the Bush43 administration, under the direction and advice of fascists like our new attorney general, and outright criminals like our vice president and secretary of defense, you must feel right at home. I don't even know where to begin to respond to your kind of wrongheadedness... nor do I have the time or energy to even try here. I've already given this thread far too much of my time; and, frankly, corporate-minded, right-wingers, like you, just aren't worth it. Do you have any idea how much philosophy of both civil rights and contract law we'd have to cover here for me to effectively shoot-down your salient points with attribution? Send me a check for my normal hourly fee and I'll be happy to educate you. In the meantime, if you really care to understand it -- and, believe me, I'm under no illusion that you do -- there is no end to the web sites out there where you can learn about what can and cannot be legally contracted-to; and what rights can and cannot be legally signed-away. You still don't get it... and I fear you never will. Those like you -- or at least what you appear to be -- rarely do.

I will quote part of something I wrote to someone in a private message yesterday who made similar, business-imperative sorts of arguments:"Cogent comments, one and all. Thank you, [name redacted].

"I am, however, both troubled and unmoved by the purely monetary and business-interests argument. Privacy and/or its cousin, anonymity, are but two of a great many civil liberties that would be more profitably dispensed with than protected, but it is the danger of that very thing about which both Socrates and Plato were talking (and predicted) in their vast commentaries about democracy and what they considered to be its inescapable devolution into despotism; and about which our founding fathers warned us many times in their various ancillary writings; and to which then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower (a Republican, if memory serves) was clearly referring, and about which he direly warned, in his now-famous, remarkable and groundbreaking 1961 speech about the perils of the military/industrial complex (http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html).

"The interests of business, no matter how temptingly profitable, must never supercede the desires of our founding fathers when they were, in my opinion, touched by God as they defined our civil liberties... not even liberties like "privacy" which may not be clearly set forth in the Constitution but which have, nevertheless, subsequently been somewhat more clearly defined and philosophically and pragmatically refined in a large body of modern case law. If we allow that, then the very despots of which Plato, Socrates, our founding fathers, and President Eisenhower warned will have won.

"Is that really the kind of America in which you'd like to live?"

Note: In fairness to the person to whose words mine, above, were responding, I have since heard from him and have come to realize that his original words only appeared to be making the purely monetary and business interests argument; that he was, in fact, complaining, with sarcasm, that that's the sad state of things today; and that, in fact, he considers privacy to be an inalienable right. Whew!Whenever I read the misguided notions of (un)fairness espoused by those such as you who believe that rights are only rights as long as everyone agrees; and who don't bother to stand-up for the rights of others because they're not really affected by them, I am reminded of the often-mistquoted (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/009/First%20They%20Came%20for%20the%20Jews%20By%20Franklin%20H%20Littell_009_29_.htm) words of protestant pastor, pacifist, and anti-Nazi activist Martin Niemoeller (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/niemoeller.html), who once wrote:"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist. Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me... and there was no one left to speak out [for me]."I cannot spend my time shooting-down your misguided strawman arguments intended to distract both me and the reader from the larger point. This situation is potentially grave -- the proverbial "tip of the iceberg." It only begins with the .US namespace and, if not challenged and stopped, will, at the hands of those with your kind of reckless sensibilities, creep like a cancer to all other gTLD and ccTLD namespaces in time.

In your words, above, is contained the phrase, "they are not government imposed" when you referred to a contract's ability to restrict rights. But, in fact, this case is about precisely that... and you've been somehow unable (or, more likely, unwilling) to grasp it. The controller of the .US domain registry has been directed by a United States Government agency (the NTIA (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/)) to deprive registrants in the .US namespace of their inalienable right to privacy and, when necessary, anonymity, as a matter of public policy; and, by so doing, to effectively chill the registrant's 1st Amendment right to free speech; because, without anonymity, those like you who believe it's okay to silence someone by contractual agreement or popular vote will have the resources to so intimidate the often-of-little-means registrant/speaker that s/he will simply back down rather than endure your harassments and well-funded torments. Going up against the rich and powerful is not for the faint of heart, for such as they will not hesitate to deprive the weak and poor of their voice just because they can. I've lived long enough to see it happen in my own life over and over again. It is not just some leftist promulgation as those of your type on the Right are always so quick to deride.

And I do not hold with your argument that the registrant/speaker wishing anonymity in his/her WHOIS records in the .US namespace need simply not register the domain in the first place if they can't live with the no-anonymity requirement. That's just the old "America... love it or leave it" argument, repackaged. What part of my earlier statements:"The Internet is no longer optional. Free speech limited to stapling flyers to telephone poles in the dark of night isn't free speech."did you not understand? And how curious -- ne, telling -- it is that you chose to nitpick the differences between democracy and liberty rather than to address, head-on, these more salient contentions of mine.

Originally posted by kohashi
Democracy has nothing to do with your rights as an individual, it is a common mistake. Liberty are your rights, democracy is majority rule."Kleenex" is a brand; it is actually "facial tissue" that you are using. "Coke" is a brand; it is actually "cola" that you are drinking. Some nits, when picked, so border on the ridiculous that they deserve no retort. Res ipsa loquitur.

Originally posted by kohashi
majority rule could impose such things as taking away free speech if the majority agreed.No it couldn't. What... were you out smoking behind the building when they covered this in high school civics and government class? Have you read none of the ancillary writings of Madison or Jefferson or Franklin or any of the other founding fathers when they explained, for posterity, precisely what they had in mind? The very, most fundamental idea behind the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights was that the rights of the least of us may not be abrogated in policy or practice by the wishes of a short-sighted or self-interested majority. You are an American, right? Or am I arguing with someone who actually lives in another country -- including, perhaps, even the United Kingdom on whose legal system ours is built but greatly improved upon -- whose liberty does not depend on every U.S. citizen's full understanding of, and appreciation for, such arcane issues and who, therefore, stands to lose nothing no matter how it comes out? [A rhetorical question.]

Originally posted by kohashi
A situation like that again would be illiberal democracy.Merely "illiberal?" That's it? That's the most severe adjective you can find for a hypothetical travesty and abomination of such biblical proportions as a majority in a democracy depriving its citizenry of the inalienable right of free speech by the mere act of effecting a popular vote to do so?il·lib·er·al
adj.
1. Narrow-minded; bigoted.
2. Archaic Ungenerous, mean, or stingy.
3.a. Archaic: Lacking liberal culture.
3.b. Archaic: Ill-bred; vulgar.
SOURCE: The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/illiberal).Maybe in some Banana Republic "democracy;" or perhaps one of the neo-"democracies" that those in the former Soviet Union are foisting-off on the world with the unrealistic expectation that anyone who truly understands democracy and liberty would ever take them seriously, but not here, Sparky... not as long as at least I'm still breathing! And I'm absolutely certain that I'm not alone.

I rather prefer more accurate adjectives to describe the earth-shattering hypothetical that you have so casually proffered here... words like catastrophic (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/catastrophic), or unconscionable (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unconscionable) or fascist (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism)... just to name three that come easily to mind.

Originally quoted from a dictionary by kohashi
Democracy:
Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives......but, as in the case of American democracy, with certain necessary safeguards built-in so that a carried-away and self-interested majority cannot oppress a less-vocal and/or less-empowered minority...

...or have you never heard of the Electoral College (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/), just to name one such safeguard?

People like you are scary. You don't realize it, of course, but those who graduate from law schools with your kind of "a contract cures (and rules) all" and "popular vote is always best" sensibilities are usually the ones who somehow always end-up sponsoring liberty-depriving propositions for inclusion on the ballot in places like California that seem to have lost sight of the inherent value of, and unqualified need to preserve, representative democracy; or as defendant's counsel in ACLU-filed lawsuits. And, boy, do ACLU attorneys usually love guys like you! The old "shooting fish in a barrel" comparative comes to mind... as does the oft-quoted-by-young-Republicans perversion of the definition of the Golden Rule: "Them what gots the gold rules."

In my considerable experience, this sort of argument with people like you usually has no end and, when conducted in person over a few beers, often augers-in with a round of fisticuffs. So I now warn that I am nearing the point of observing the time-worn maxim found in my very signature here:Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.If you can't bring to this table something more compelling than the same old Right-winged, conservative, short-sighted, self-interested, neo-Republican (and, some would argue, neo-fascist) party line -- a party line that I believe even Ronald Reagan, were he able to observe and comment upon it today, would find disturbing -- then there may be little else that either of us should say about this to one another here.

But, though I have quoted the second line of my signature above, and have cited it as reason enough for us to abate unless there's something truly new to be discussed, here; let not the first line of my signature be forgotten, either:Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.The veritas about this matter which I will never permit to be abscondi is that, in keeping with the liberty-restricting and democracy-destroying ideals of the Bush43 administration (and likely at its direction), a U.S. government agency (the NTIA, in this case) is taking a crucial first step toward silencing the dissenters by forcing them to expose themselves if they wish to speak freely.

Let me wind down by sharing a little parable that will help to make the point...


As some here know, there was a period in my life some years back when I, in concert with a police officer who was then in the Minneapolis Police Department's Vice Unit, drafted both local and state legislation aimed at closing-down businesses which masqueraded as legitimate "massage" establishments but were, in fact, houses of prostitution. I will not get into, here, what was behind all that other than to say that it was not some kind of right-winged morals, or religious matter, with me; but was, instead, a simple quality-of-life issue and an attempt to help the public see that prostituion is not the victimless crime that pimps and the empowered white males who are their customers so frequently argue. Prostitution's fundamental harm is so much more complex and misunderstood than such as the popular 1990 film "Pretty Woman (http://imdb.com/title/tt0100405/)" would have us believe. But I digress.

As Bill (my police officer partner) and I traveled around the city to the sixty-something official community groups and neighborhood councils to garner support for our work, we would often be asked the quite logical, valid and reasonable question, "If you close down the massage parlors, won't those women just go out on the street and peddle their wares there instead; and so, then, won't that just make it even worse for the neighborhoods?"

My response to that question -- which Bill would always prefer that I expressed first -- based on my extensive research and considerable expertise on the subject (acquired during a tragic life experience and several subsequent years of part-time work on a book that I was writing on the subject at the time, but which has evolved, since, into something else that I think will more effectively get the message across, but which I won't get into here) was: "No, it will not, generally, send those women out onto the streets because women who engage in massage-parlor-style forms of prostitution (as well as strip-joint and escort styles) -- especially the Asian (largely Korean, but also some Vietnamese) women, who make-up (even to this day) the vast majority of massage parlor prostitutes -- usually never worked the streets before (not even in their own countries) and tend to never see doing so as an option. They will, therefore, if their parlor is closed, simply pack-up and go to another parlor somewhere. They're highly mobile and often move from state to state in order to stay just one step ahead of the law; or because the organized criminals who often own interstate strings of parlors direct it."

But my partner, Bill, had a decidedly cop's viewpoint that was much more basic and easy to comprehend.

"Fine," he'd reply, glibly, to the question, "let 'em go out onto the streets and peddle their wares there. At least then I can see 'em! Prostitutes -- or, better yet, their johns -- are a helluva lot easier to arrest when they're out in plain view, on the streets, where I can see 'em."

The United States Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), a government agency, for what should now be painfully obvious reasons, wants to be able to see registrants in the .US namespace... registrants who may wish to exercise their 1st Amendment rights to say things about the NTIA's boss (George W. Bush) that he and his criminal cohorts might prefer weren't said. In keeping with the theme of what Bill so persuasively and succinctly pointed out in my quote of him, above, talking to neighborhood groups about the prostitutes, it would be a helluva lot easier for 1st-Amendment-exercising .US registrants/speakers to be silenced when they're out in the open, where the NTIA can see them, would it not? And is there anyone who is truly familiar with the history of this great nation who believes it will stop there... with the .US namespace? Dare we let this carcinoma metastasize?

At the risk of offending Dr. Littel (http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/009/First%20They%20Came%20for%20the%20Jews%20By%20Franklin%20H%20Littell_009_29_.htm), I will close by intentionally turning on their heads the inimitable words of Pastor Niemoeller:"First they came for the .US registrants..."

I think you are wrong, you clearly disagree, and I won't waste my time reading all that, so I selected a few things that stuck out.

...taking a crucial first step toward silencing the dissenters by forcing them to expose themselves if they wish to speak freely.

You neglect the fact this is one domain name space, a nearly un-used one at that. There are plenty of other ccTLDs open to registrants and many gTLDs as well, which can hide your information. Silencing dissenters? I think not, they were using .com anyways, so .us namespace really doesn't matter.

Requiring users to use accurate whois information isn't a violation of anybody's liberties. You don't have a god-given right to register .US domain names. You are given the option as long as you follow some of their rules. That is my opinion and view on the issue. You can debate my view-point but to attack me personally is off-topic and rude.

"corporate-minded, right-wingers, like you, just aren't worth it"

You really have no idea who I am and you seem to have trouble with anyone opposing your view who you easily lump into a group of "corporate-minded, right wingers." I will share my view on these forums and voice my opinion regarding domain name issues. Maybe my thoughts are scary, maybe my beilefs are also scary, but isn't that my right to think and express myself freely? I have expressed my thoughts concerning this topic and have no more to say.

Originally posted by kohashi
I think you are wrong, you clearly disagree, and I won't waste my time reading all that...The folly of disagreeing with something you admit you haven't fully read is not painfully obvious to you? Whatever you do, don't bother to read and fully consider what I wrote. After all, you wouldn't want any of it to rub off.

Originally posted by kohashi
You neglect the fact this is one domain name space, a nearly un-used one at that.On the contrary, I addressed that point directly... in several places and in several ways... or did you not notice all those points about "creeping" and "cancer" and... oh... wait... I remember now: You just told us that you didn't bother to read all those persnickety, irritating little details before lashing out against them.

Yes... of course. I forgot. Sorry.

Originally posted by kohashi
There are plenty of other ccTLDs open to registrants and many gTLDs as well, which can hide your information.Heaven forbid I should want the rules of ccTLD that represents my country; the largest, oldest, and most revered democracy on the planet -- the United States of America -- to reflect its core values... or at least the ones that the likes of me is trying to keep the likes of you from abolishing.

As for any further response to such foolishness, see my earlier posts in this thread (which I may refer to, herein, as "above," but which may actually be on a previous thread page). I've already covered it nicely... remember the "cancer" talk and th... er... oh, yeah... you didn't bother to read any of that, did you? [sigh] Oh, well.

Originally posted by kohashi
Silencing dissenters? I think not, they were using .com anyways, so .us namespace really doesn't matter.Says you. I'm glad the .US namespace isn't important to you. Perhaps you care more about .JP or, no, wait... maybe .RU? I'm certain dissenters get silenced in that one!

I cannot even begin tell you how disappointed I am to learn that you consider the .US namespace to be disposable. All this time I thought I was debating with someone who basically got, but maybe just didn't agree. But now I learn: You just don't get it. Period. Pity.

And, really, let's finally just call this what it really is, shall we? You can't argue the real points... I mean, who could? So, instead, you're playing the "shrugged-shoulders" gambit. You know... should have been on a debate team or two in high school or college; if so, you'd be better at this.

Originally posted by kohashi
Requiring users to use accurate whois information isn't a violation of anybody's liberties.Of course it is... especially when the registrant is nevertheless still available -- even if only through the proxy -- to resolve emergency technical mattters, or to receive cease-and-desist letters from those threatening to sue him, or to be served a warrant by law enforcement wishing to seize his data or arrest him. And all the reasons why are clearly set forth in my postings, above. Sorry... I'm not going to let the fact that you refuse the actually read them force me to repeat myself.

Originally posted by kohashi
You don't have a god-given right to register .US domain names.We're not talking about God-given rights, Mr. Contracts-and-Popular-Votes-Can-Take-Them-Away. We're talking about Consitutional rights. There's a difference. You don't have a God-given right to express your opinions anywhere on the Internet, but your words, below, sure indicate that you understand it to be your Consitutional right. Imagine if someone told you that it wasn't; that the Internet was not part of the forms of media covered by the 1st Amendment; and that the only way you could express these opinions would be the old-fashioned way: Nailing to trees parchment bearing your wordsof dissent, disagreement or just plain, ol' commentary.

Who gets to decide where the line is? You? Dang it! You still don't get it!

Originally posted by kohashi
You are given the option as long as you follow some of their rules.Of course, I addressed this in my prior posts. As long as "their rules" only address the technology of making it all work (the form), then I categorically agree. But when "their rules" also address content, then I don't. Was that not painfully clear from what I wrote, above? Did you not understand when I wrote... er... oh, yeah... I forgot: You didn't trouble yourself to actually read any of that. My bad.

Originally posted by kohashi
That is my opinion and view on the issue. You can debate my view-point but to attack me personally is off-topic and rude.Nice job of using the magic words -- "off-topic" and "rude" -- to try to get my account suspended pursuant to the WHT TOS. What a cowardly tactic -- and how not-surprising to see it from someone who clearly understands that he has nowhere left to go in this debate.

A man's opinion cannot be separated from the man. This is a debate -- one in which there has been no name-calling or shot-from-the-hip sniping; and one that is being watched by several key players within ICANN and in the GNSO after I invited them to tune-in here. Even those among them who disagree with me here have emailed me privately and told me that I'm making good points... and that you're not. But not a single one of them -- including people there whom I know dislike me -- have said that I've crossed any lines in my behavior.

Go ahead... get my account suspended just because I'm an effective debater who's backed you into a corner from which you cannot emerge without yelling "uncle." I can think of no better and example of what happens when contractual terms, and not constitutional rights, govern when, if or how a man may express his opinion. Having my account suspended after all this would make my larger points better than even I could. Please. Do it! The world is watching.

Originally posted by kohashi
You really have no idea who I am and you seem to have trouble with anyone opposing your view...Of course I do! You thought that would offend me? That's what views are! What... you want everyone to agree all the time? You never want anyone to be passionate about anything? Vigorous debate offends your sensibilities? If so, that helps to explain alot.

Originally posted by kohashi
...who you easily lump into a group of "corporate-minded, right wingers." When it walks like a duck, and ... well... you know the rest.

Originally posted by kohashi
I will share my view on these forums and voice my opinion regarding domain name issues.No one -- least of all, and including, me -- has suggested otherwise. Your ceasing doing so would be a huge loss. Don't let the fact that you decided to tangle with someone who pasted you stop you from participating. Just come next time with better ammunition.

See? That's how people who aren't afraid of good debate think. They don't want their opponents silenced, like you clearly do. On the contrary, we free-speech lovers want our opponents to step out into the ring and put up their dukes so we can summarily pummel them with arguments they can't win.

I welcome your view in these forums -- howsoever misguided they may be. Let the reader contrast that with your earlier-stated, not-so-thinly-veiled desire to get my account here suspended.

Originally posted by kohashi
Maybe my thoughts are scary, maybe my beilefs are also scary, but isn't that my right to think and express myself freely?Yes! Yes! Yes! Mygod... could it be that I'm finally getting through? Yes! Of [/i]course[/i] they are. Now you're getting it! Now ask yourself how you'd feel if someone with the power to control it had replied that you could do so only if you followed his rules? I mean, really ponder that for a moment and maybe... just maybe you'll begin to grasp why this is such a big deal!

Originally posted by kohashi
I have expressed my thoughts concerning this topic and have no more to say. Well, that's too bad, because I, for one, value your opinion. Of course, it's just difficult to take it too seriously when you won't even read your opponent's opinions before you express yours. But I pick nits.

You go off on long irrelevant tangents in my mind. I am concerned with the domain industry, that is my concern. I care about the relation to domain names, if you are worried about big brother in your home, that's another problem, one which I am not concerned with on these forums. As far as I am concerned as a 'domainer' the .US namespace requiring accurate information is of no concern in the greater scheme of things. Users have many options, .us is almost a joke of a namespace, if you search my previous posts, my belief is that America's domain namespace is .com, not .us. .us is just a small domain namespace with minimal end user usage and low speculation from domainers. It is a 'disposable' namespace in my mind. My life was fine without it, it only opened recently and not much has changed. Importance of a domain namespace should be evaluated on their economic potential which comes from consumer recognition and use. .us? nobody cares.

I will give you a basic economics lesson though, my time isn't worth it to keep addressing your long responses which try and criticize each point. As far as being rude and off-topic, those are true. You are getting far from the issue of domain names and attempting to attack me personally. It is rude, and arguments can be seperated between discussion of ideas and trying to attack the person expressing them.

Originally posted by kohashi
You go off on long irrelevant tangents in my mind.That's your opinion, and as I believe it was Voltaire who said, "...I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

Originally posted by kohashi
I am concerned with the domain industry...And I'm not? I'm not one of eNom's oldest resellers? I have no stake in this? Or, worse, my stake is somehow not as relevant or valid as yours? Is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by kohashi
I care about the relation to domain names,Huh? I'm sorry... I don't understand what that means. Please clarify.

Originally posted by kohashi
...if you are worried about big brother in your home, that's another problem, one which I am not concerned with on these forums.Then perhaps you should not have chimed-in, because this is my thread, and that is clearly one of its subjects... from its outset. I refer you to my thread-starting post for verification.

Or... wait a minute... are you saying that because it's subject is not on your agenda, then it should be on no one elses? Or that you should be permitted to change the subject of this thread because it's of no interest to you? Is that what you're really saying? Are you sure you want that in these forums' archives forever for your children to later read? I mean... that, if it's truly what you're saying, really would be dishonorable, wouldn't it?

Originally posted by kohashi
As far as I am concerned as a 'domainer'You mean a domain name speculator, don't you? One of those guys who buys-up as many domains as he can afford to buy which anyone might possibly ever want to use and then, instead of the general public enjoying being able to purchase the domain they need for under twenty bucks, like everyone else, they must, instead, come to you and pay $500 or more? Is that what you mean by "domainer?" Didn't we used to call guys like you "cyber squatters?" And don't people like you pretty much always lose any UDRP action that anyone spends the time, energy and money to aim at you... in part because domain name speculators, generally, are so universally reviled by the rest of us normal people who just want to register a domain and launch a nice little web site and not bother anyone; but mostly because the courts just say it's wrong? Hmm?

Originally posted by kohashi
the .US namespace requiring accurate information is of no concern in the greater scheme of things.To you, you mean. Fine. Ditto that whole, earlier, "defend to my death" thing. But that's just your opinion, isn't it? And it doesn't give you the right to control the agenda here, does it?

Originally posted by kohashi
Users have many options, .us is almost a joke of a namespace, if you search my previous posts, my belief is that America's domain namespace is .com, not .us.Okay... finally you write something that I can more or less agree with... at least a little. I cannot disagree that the .US namespace has not panned-out like its registry had hoped. I clearly understand both the letter and spirit of what you're trying to say, and there is truth to it. But that doesn't make the .US namespace disposable. Or are you saying that because so few people use it, then it's perfectly okay for them to be silenced... you know... as long as it doesn't affect you?

What... are you a Vulcan or something? The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few... or the one?

That's precisely what the framers of the Constitution explicitly intended -- went miles and miles out of their way, in fact -- to make sure never happened! I asked, earlier, if you were even an American. Now I wonder if you're even on this planet, for godsake.

Man! Some things are just so obvious that they barely even deserve a response. I'm starting to feel like I'm arguing with someone about whether the sky's actually blue. Sheesh!

I reiterate my suspicion that somewhere along the line you've missed some basic high school government and civics classes. But then again, why should that surprise me? I read somewhere recently (and perhaps someone reading here can remember where it was and post a link to it) that some frighteningly huge percentage of America's young people, according to some recent poll that someone took, believe such things as that it's okay for government to control the press; and that a little censorship is okay, etc., etc. So, apparently, you're not alone.

[Shakes head in disbelief.]

Originally posted by kohashi
.us is just a small domain namespace with minimal end user usage and low speculation from domainers.So, I ask again, that makes it disposable? It's not important from a domain speculator's point of view because there's no money to be made... ostensibly because it's little used... and, therefore, its paultry handful of registrants deserve no constitutional protections? Is that what you're saying? Oh... wait... I see that you've answered that question, below; and I further see that I should just shut-up and let you continue.... 'cause you're about to discredit yourself far better and more effectively than I ever could have.

Let's all listen, shall we?

Originally posted by kohashi
It is a 'disposable' namespace in my mind. My life was fine without it, it only opened recently and not much has changed. Importance of a domain namespace should be evaluated on their economic potential which comes from consumer recognition and use. .us? nobody cares.Did anybody read this guy his rights first? I feel like Tom Cruise's character in "A Few Good Men" right after he got Jack Nicholson's character so riled-up that he blurted out his admission of having ordered a "code red."

It's worthy of note that Nicholson's character didn't think he had a wrongheaded viewpoint, either.

The prosecution rests.

Originally posted by kohashi
I will give you a basic economics lesson though, my time isn't worth it...I'll say. Um... your Freudian slip is showing.

Originally posted by kohashi
...to keep addressing your long responses which try and criticize each point.Um... kohashi? Listen... I... uh... well... ya' know... I really... um.... hate to break it to ya' like this, but... well... that's pretty much how debate works. Try not to get little pieces of that burst bubble of yours all over the place, will ya?de·bate
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
SOURCE: The Free Dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/debate).Originally posted by kohashi
As far as being rude and off-topic, those are true.That's your opinion. And, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, that whole earlier "to the death" thing still applies.

And as long as that's all it is (your opinion, I mean), then we're fine. But if you're using the term "rude" just so you could bolster your complaint about me (and you and I both know that you did) in an effort to get my WHT account suspended -- an account I've had here for several years longer than most posters around here have... and with no suspensions in all those years, I might add -- then I reiterate that that's cowardly; I remind you that just because you call a thing purple doesn't mean it is; and I leave to the reader to judge who appears to be the more honorable party, here.

[Hint: It probably ain't you.]

Originally posted by kohashi
You are getting far from the issue of domain names...You're... um... I mean... did I just read what I thought I just read? You... I mean, you're... you're... you're kidding, right? I'm truly stunned by this obervation. Are you and I even having the same conversation?

I'm not getting far from the issue of domain names. I am dead on the issue of domain names. What I'm getting far from is the part of that issue about which you happen to give a damn! There's one helluva difference, isn't there?

And, knowing this, why did you bother to chime in? Further, once you realized that this wasn't going where your interests lie, why did you continue? I don't get it. Were you fighting just for the sake of the fight or something?

Originally posted by kohashi
...and attempting to attack me personally.Alright, that's enough! Stop it!

:angry:

There have been no personal attacks here. Personal attacks have no point other than the attack itself. There has been nothing like that going on in this thread. You just don't like getting pasted in a debate, and now you're crying foul. You think the readers can't see through you?

I reiterate: A man cannot be separated from his opinion. Whenever anyone begins a sentence containing an opinion with the word "I" it automatically becomes personal. A "thing" didn't utter the opinion, a person did... hence the categorization "personal" -- or does the root word escape your notice? Opinions are always personal. It is not possible to counter some of your arguments without also talking about your ilk. That's how this sort of thing works. And any attempts at such a degree of political correctness that that reality is denied; or that honorable debate ends-up getiting sanitized in the name of it, are misguided, dishonorable and, worse, outright censorship. I'm sorry that this debate has become inelegant for you. Perhaps you should have been better prepared -- ne, should have revealed your true self-interests -- from the outset. "If you are out to describe the truth,
leave elegance to the tailor."
- Albert EinsteinYou may not like the truth as I've pummelled you with it, here, but you don't get to silence it by calling it something it isn't. Stop it; and play fair.

Originally posted by kohashi
It is rude, and arguments can be seperated between discussion of ideas and trying to attack the person expressing them. It is not rude; and neither repeating it, nor wishing, will make it so.

And I never said that arguments could not (and, morever, should not) be separate from attacking the person expressing them. And, anyway... in order for that to even have any relevance, here, there has to have been an attack in the first place. There was not... though I confess you're coming dangerously close to provoking one with your intentional misstatments of fact for the express purpose of trying to slime me with forum mods. But, alas, you never will provoke such an attack... so don't even waste your time. I'm better at this than you; and, anyway... every reader here, including me, now has your number. For someone who demands that people expose themselves, you certainly don't wear it well.

Now, what I did say (for I think this is the third or fourth time) was that a man's opinions cannot be separated from the man; and that it's not often possible to argue with a man's opinion without arguing against his ilk as well.

That's not the same as an "attack." You don't see the difference?

Let's see what you have accomplished: accused me of being cowardly, dishonorable, ignorant, un-educated, and a cyber-squatter. If that does not strike you as rude, I believe you are sadly mistaken. You're confused with the domain industry, it is very apparent. Someone who buys lots of domain names suddenly is a speculator? What about those with a solid financial model proving to return revenue on a recurring basis, doesn't appear to have much speculation. And cyber-squatter? An actual cybersquatter would be one trying to violate trademark laws. Is that what you are calling people who buy lots of domain names? because that simply is not true for all domain buyers.

And accusing me of attempting to slime you with forum mods? I am a forum moderator and I have been keeping this discussion open in hopes that something productive comes of it. So far, you've resorted to accusing me of various things, listed above. Keep your thoughts about me to yourself and the topic on domain names.