Re: Public Assertions

[Jeff Shultz]

Can anyone explain why we are being exposed to this? From either side?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:56:43AM -0800, Bill Woodcock wrote:

      On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> If I may... I am in possesion of your certified letter > -AND- the signed acknowledgement that you received notice

    >        that I have taken posession of said certified mail.

> > please get your facts straight, esp. when making formal > replies to government inqueries. it can only strengthen

    >        your case if you tell the truth.

Equally but differently untruthful in my case. Myself, I don't sit around my house all day, breathlessly anticipating a new missive from Dean.

                                -Bill

        then what, pray tell, do you do to while away the hours?
        knit? route IP datagrams? carve elaborate totems from ancient redwoods?
        myself, I have taken up Portugese... such an expressive language.

my instruction in the email above was derived from reading the submitted comments to the DoC/NOI on securing the DNS. telling us lies is one thing, factual mis-statements to the goverment is something else and i fail to see how doing so helps ones cause.

        in the event that anyone has doubts, I will be glad to scan and post
        the evidence.  Dean, care to amend your statements?


--bill

--
Jeff Shultz