Funding IP Allocations

[David R. Conrad]

Amusing.  No Jimmy, you don't agree with me, but nice try at twisting
my words.  Don't suppose you'd care to expand on your (typical)
childish insinuations (highlighted below)?  You have insinuated
criminal and unethical behavior numerous times, yet cowardly, you
never seem to be able to come out and make your accusations explicit.
Could it be because you know your insinuations are pure bullshit and
you're afraid of the the slander/libel lawsuits that would follow?

Let's try it in classical Flem style:

Who are "certain people" mentioned below ?

Who would "individual people's" make reference to ?

Who are "private parties" ?

(only three, my stomach can take only so much)

Regards,
-drc
-------
...
>This also goes back to the efforts to split IP allocations
>and domain name registrations to make sure that
>certain people have long-term jobs and do not have
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to work with each other.
>
>In my opinion, the Internet is too large and too precious
>a resource to be structuring the future agencies based
>on individual people's personal goals and personalities
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>as of 1997. The InterNIC future should also be independent
>of companies' plans to cash out with IPOs.
>
>It now appears that the NSF is trying to structure a
>situation where something like the InterNIC remains
>and is funded with the $20,000,000. This will allow
>all of the private parties that want "out" of the InterNIC
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to go pursue their agendas in the private sector.
>
>The question still remains about assets. As private
                                             ^^^^^^^
>parties depart from the U.S. Government, they may
 ^^^^^^^
>prefer to quietly take assets with them to launch
>their businesses, but this is not allowed by law.

....[pointless drivel deleted]...