william at william at
Thu Dec 11 01:02:01 UTC 2003

I answered questions posed here on related inet-access mail list thread 
and there is also info there on my previous post why the accusations had
had basis for it. Those who are interested may read it there or in archives
and Susan will I'm sure welcome me not taking any more of nanog resource 
on this. Again if somebody has ->particular<- data to indicate that website
is not accurate, please feel free to contact me in private or on appropriate
mail list, otherwise lets stop from continuing on nanog as it only invites
more trolling.
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 william at wrote:
> > P.S.  Note to other - this thread may have happened  because of recent
> > thread on layer42 on inet-access mail list. While I generally answer
> > accusations, I'm not the one who starts such threads and do not think its
> > approriate for nanog mail list, so this will be my only message here.
> I think you've made plenty of accusations without basis, so to quote
> Richard Cox "Then you would appear to have a circular argument to contend
> with."
> Don't go around accusing people of malfeasance if you're not prepared to
> be confronted with your own wrongdoing (IE your own hijacked blocks), or
> to face the criticism of others when you're wrong.
> I generally try to stay out of these types of arguements, but I think that
> you should probably focus your efforts on something more productive than
> defaming other ISPs.

More information about the NANOG mailing list