<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
<META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.28.3">
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff">
On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 20:54 +1100, Cee Four wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Skeeves and AusNOG members,
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Before naming names we should all look at the possibility of resolving disputes through the judicial system rather then vilification on a public mailing list.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
AusNOG from what I understood was a respected community containing professionals from the IT Industry, now it seems that this is thrown out the window for more of a "Fight club" style of dirty punches.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Professionals post from real accounts that identify themselves, they dont hide behind a free email service that harbours spammers, miscreants, and those who think they are anonymous.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Seeing as the current participants in this thread want more information lets put some more on the table;
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
Lets look at the creditability of the thread creator. Correct me if I am wrong Skeeve but is the below not you?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Regardless of Skeeves history, which even I recently reminded him of here on this very list, the actions of AINS are modern, current and affecting many now, and despicable!<BR>
This is not something Skeeve is doing causing this, so his history is really irrelevant in this case.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
With regards to respectable companies like PACNET. Why drag them into this when clearly you Skeeve stated that this was related to a "billing dispute".
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
PACNET were advised a customer of theirs is wrongfully advertising routes they have no right to, PACNET (which have gone to utter SHIT since China Netcom sold them in, what was it, '06/07?) have decided they dont give a shit, so I think its fair to out them for this and be named in court injunction.<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
@Karl Auer - "There is a lesson in this for all of us: When arranging contracts,
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
ensure that network resources that are the property of or under the
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
administrative control of your company (as distinct from under the
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
operational control of your company) are specifically excluded from any
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
actions the other party is permitted to take in case of dispute."
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
I'd have to agree with you on this. Contracts should be read... Is this not why we have those wonderful people who are called lawyers, who enjoy there exorbitant fees.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
The only thing I agree with here, however as someone else said today, whats written in a contract, does not make it above the law<BR>
and we all know half the crap that goes into contracts are legally unenforceable scare tactics.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
In closing, leave your dirty laundry out of AusNOG. Why bring the content within these mailing list to such a level that I would expect from juviniles.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
Because it could be an eye opener to anyone researching considering doing business with AINS as the lowly scum tactics tehy are likely to enact. It also might be an eye opener to anyone wishing to work for them as to the sort of immoral and likely illegal acts they might be forced to conduct, when push comes to then shove, the person who engages the rules can be held just as liable\ as the idiot who directed them to apply it.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
-C4 ( just my 2c )
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
your 2c is only worth something if you are not anonymous, at the moment you owe me 4 minutes of my time, on a Sunday night, that could cost you a bottle of JD black label :)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>