Re: [ga] Yardstick by which to measure

[Thomas Baxter <baxtertms@xxxxxxxxx>]

I cant understand any words you say in your message. Cant you speak plainley?

You sound like that Jim guy who is saying we need to change DNS to that UFOs 
can have
access to the internet by adding a galaxy number.

I cant make out the meaning of your last message below - can anyone else figure 
out
this mess?

Any ohhh - by the way, why doesnt the "representation person" have an ICANN 
address instead
of the free yahoo one? I'm a poor computer trainer - thats why I have a yahoo 
emails, but is ICANN so broken
or cheep that they cant give you any more dignified addr???

Thoms

 BAX! Names Allentown
http://www.bax-names-allentown.com
Computer setup, training, software and services
Coming soon: BAX-Mail - free web email under the BAX TLD.




________________________________
From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Accountability Headquarters <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, May 10, 2010 4:08:10 PM
Subject: [ga] Yardstick by which to measure


My hat is off to Mr. Baxter. I just can't go on and do that. I have an awe type 
respect for such folks. How do they do that??
 
However the cool thing is that this post goes so far over the top that if 
Fowlie, Kent, Denise, Glen or Rod or whoever does not censor this person we 
will know for a fact that Joe's banning is not about content of posts.  But 
rather a very clear statement by ICANN that politics in society at-large 
dictate content within ICANN.

--- On Sun, 5/9/10, Thomas Baxter <baxtertms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


>From: Thomas Baxter <baxtertms@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Retraction from the list
>To: "POST-TO GNSO LIST" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Sunday, May 9, 2010, 11:01 PM
>
>
> >
>What kind of stupido are you in any way? 
>
>I looked over at the links for this websites and it doesnt list any complaints 
>about anyone at all, it
>displays the abuse addy for the domains that you selected. 
>
>So not only are you Joes bitch but you are an embicil as well, looks like it 
>from the mountains here
>
>After looking over the patternistic postings from you and this hugh fellow, I 
>think maybe still you 
>are all paid ICANN persons who attack John because you know he would be 
>affective in fighting
>the ICANN theifery that is under ways right now. 
>
>So to hugh and jeff -I just want to know one important point: does joe kiss 
>you behind the ears each
>time he goes to do you know what action? (hehehehe).
>
>You have to be his bitches since no sane persons would post the non-sense and 
>falsities like I see both of 
>you posting.
>
>So we have
> too more kooks - one is at no address he lists and claims he was in every 
> important position in
>the internet and the military - more jobs that some person can do in one whole 
>life span, so we know he is a
>liar.
>
>The other one has a title called "forensic mentalist" which is in the same 
>buckets as "psychic" and "remote viewer",
>So hugh, do you know that wack -jobb  Ed Dames in the military, or perhaps you 
>met him, jeff, since you have
>employed in every job the us govmt has ever created - thats in your own words.
>
>So we have a mister "I do all important jobs - so respect what things I talk 
>about" and we have a "forensic mentalist" which
>is the same as "ghostbuster", "remote viewer" and "numbers lady". You should 
>all go on coast2coastam with george norey and
>make millions selling cds and books.
>
>Yah like either of you have any credibilities.  (NOT!!!!)
>
>Thoms.
>
> BAX! Names Allentown
>http://www.bax-names-allentown.com/
>Computer setup, training, software and services
>Coming soon: BAX-Mail - free web email under the BAX TLD.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________
 From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx; 
>ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx; joe Babtista 
><baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; icann-board@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx; gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Sat, May 8, 2010 3:33:43 PM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Retraction from the list
>
> >
>John, Eric and all,
> 
>  I trimmed the "TO" qand "CC" list as for redundancy.
> 
>  What's interesting with american-webmasters.net is that there is still one 
> outstanding
>abuse complaint filed, see: 
>http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/abuse?domain=american-webmasters.net
>and http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/abuse?domain=ADNS.NET
>However their DNS is nearly clean, but ADNS.NET needs a bit of clean-up work,
>see: 
>http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport?domain=adns.net&format=raw&loadresults=true&token=240178db88565ba914f7a0001af96019.
>  
>I can at this time only assume that the nature of the abuse complaints has 
>likely but not surely, 
>to do with online behavior, which seems to support Eric's conclusion as well 
>as Dr. Joe's below.  
>But of course other conclusions are possible. None the less I have seperately 
>forwarded this to 
>the proper and relevent legal authorities for perhaps in the future their 
>review and investigation 
>accordingly.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message----- 
>>From: John Palmer 
>>Sent: May 8, 2010 10:14 AM 
>>To: Hugh Dierker , "Jeffrey A. Williams" , Matthew Pemble , 
>>denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx, joe 
>>Babtista 
>>Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>Subject: Re: [ga] Retraction from the list 
>>
>> 
>>
>>I retract nothing. How dare you pretend that you can retract something said 
>>by another person
>>unless you are that persons representative.
>> 
>> 
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>From: Hugh Dierker 
>>>To: Jeffrey A. Williams ; Matthew Pemble ; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx ; 
>>>ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx ; John Palmer ; joe Babtista 
>>>Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx ; roberto@xxxxxxxxx ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>>Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2010 8:48 AM
>>>Subject: [ga] Retraction from the list
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a formal retraction of all matters written in this previous post by 
>>>John Palmer.  This is an open list and we do not have any editing rights.  
>>>This is not a republication but a retraction.
>>> 
>>>Mr. Palmer,  
>>> 
>>>I suppose you have a normal side to you. I am sure I could find something to 
>>>like about you. But I personally know Jeff. I personally knew his mother who 
>>>just recently passed away. I have spoken with his sister and his brother on 
>>>matters of family and finance.  We all enjoy the troll and fake person games 
>>>but you make yourself the fool with this post. I have papers on file with at 
>>>least one US gov. Agency where I represent the citizen named Jeff Williams, 
>>>most is confidentlal but I know as a fact that Mr. Williams pays more than 
>>>his share of taxes.
>>> 
>>>We must always remember that virtual is the world from which our reference 
>>>for the Internet comes from, and not the other way around. The biggest 
>>>problem with Mr. Palmer's post here is that it totally destroys his 
>>>credibility, in matters of right and wrong and reality. 
>>> 
>>>Mr. Palmer -- Defamation includes both Slander(spoken) and Libel(written) 
>>>false statements about another that tend to damage their reputation. When a 
>>>persons livilihood or profession is attacked in the defamation then it is 
>>>what is called per se. In most cases the libel is not really so because of a 
>>>good faith belief in the truth of the matter stated and it can be argued. In 
>>>this case you have no such defense. I suggest you shut up.
>>>
>>>--- On Fri, 5/7/10, John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: John Palmer <jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>Subject: Jeffrey A Williams and Joe Baptista are one and the same (was Re: 
>>>>[ga] RE: Removal from GA list)
>>>>To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthew Pemble" 
>>>><matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx, ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx, 
>>>>rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx, roberto@xxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>Date: Friday, May 7, 2010, 9:29 PM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> >>>>
>>>>Joe, you know there is a rule against posting under a different name while 
>>>>you are under suspension on the GA list.
>>>> 
>>>>Joe, I know that "Jeffrey" is just you posting under a different name. I 
>>>>spent most of the day online researching "Jeffrey Williams"
>>>>and am convinced of that now, after my research.
>>>> 
>>>>You have been using him as your straight man for quite a number of years 
>>>>now - how impressive that you've been able
>>>>to keep up this real complicated act for all of these years - kudos to you.
>>>> 
>>>>Now your gig is up.  
>>>> 
>>>>To the ICANN moderators: Jeffrey A. Williams is in all likelyhood Joe 
>>>>Baptista posting under a different name.
>>>>Take whatever actions you willl regarding this matter.
>>>> 
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>John
>>>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>>>>From: Jeffrey A. Williams 
>>>>>To: Matthew Pemble ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA ; denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx ; 
>>>>>ssene@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx 
>>>>>Cc: jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx ; roberto@xxxxxxxxx 
>>>>>Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 1:37 PM
>>>>>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Matthew and all,
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Good points all!  Further given that ICANN's GNSO approved the rules by 
>>>>> which the GA is loosely
>>>>>administered by, I for one could not find a single rule that Dr. Joe 
>>>>>violated, and at a minimum
>>>>>Mr. Palmers discourse was similar in discourse manner, as if that really 
>>>>>is relevant or 
>>>>>matters.  
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Frank was/is probably stepping in to mediate as his position provides 
>>>>> for.  As to why and/or
>>>>>whom requested such I do not know and believe in the interest of 
>>>>>transparency should
>>>>>be revealed specifically.
>>>>> 
>>>>>  Finnaly I feel abused in this process as well as my rights to publically 
>>>>> reading Dr. Joes
>>>>>remarks has been abruptly denied me by person(s) unknown and for reasons 
>>>>>that are
>>>>>not in keeping with the GA rules.  Therefore again I kindly but strongly 
>>>>>request that
>>>>>Dr. Joe be reinstated forthwith and that he be publically appologized to 
>>>>>for such a 
>>>>>improper suspension.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>-----Original Message----- 
>>>>>>From: Matthew Pemble 
>>>>>>Sent: May 7, 2010 2:18 AM 
>>>>>>To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" 
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [ga] RE: Removal from GA list 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Folks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would just like to point out, in the interests of fairness, that, after 
>>>>>>some 13 hours (some 6 or so of which were working hours in California) 
>>>>>>and 4 on-list responses from the ICANN ombudsman, I have not received any 
>>>>>>public or private response to my email regarding Joe's suspension 
>>>>>>apparently due to my email.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ICANN host this list therefore, under the law as it applies to me, they 
>>>>>>do have the right (in fact it is trivial to argue, the responsibility) to 
>>>>>>censor inappropriate content.  I appreciate this is different for those 
>>>>>>of you with First Amendment rights under the US Constitution :), if you 
>>>>>>assume that ICANN is a government agent (and First Amendment case law 
>>>>>>would suggest that it counts as one for that purpose.)  However, with 
>>>>>>that comes
>>>>>> the responsibility to explain your public actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am increasingly puzzled - especially by Frank's interventions.  Would 
>>>>>>ICANN please either suspend me (and explain what rule or norm I breached) 
>>>>>>and reinstate Joe, or correct the explicit statement that Joe was 
>>>>>>suspended because of my email.  
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If I do receive a private email from ICANN explaining or correcting their 
>>>>>>position, I will send an email to the list stating that such has been 
>>>>>>received.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew
>>>>>>
>>>>>>-- 
>>>>>>Matthew Pemble
>>>>>>Technical Director, Idrach Ltd
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
>>>>>>Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Jeffrey A. Williams
>>>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 294k members/stakeholders and growing, 
>>>strong!)
>>>"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>>>   Abraham Lincoln
>>>
>>>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very
>>>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
>>>
>>>"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability
>>>depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
>>>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
>>>United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
>>>===============================================================
>>>Updated 1/26/04
>>>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of
>>>Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
>>>ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
>>> jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Phone: 214-244-4827
>>>