Re: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary setback (Chesley Rafferty)

Re: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat temporary setback (Chesley Rafferty)

From: Chesley Rafferty <chesleyau§yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:55:39 +1000 (EST)
John

Thank you for your fair and unbiased opinion on the
list. It seems that only you and Bennett have taken an
uncompromised posistion in the last week.

Whilst I don't expect most people on this list to like
it, provided I make any changes that the Court ruling
requires, I have the same rights to run my business as
any other on this list.

It's good to see that reason still exists on this
list.

Thanks

Chesley

 --- John Russell <jr&#167;veridas.net> wrote: > It seems
to me that because of the hollow victory
> achieved
> by auDA and the ACCC, that Josh and Ron are
> attempting to milk
> every last comma of significance, and publicity, 
> from what is, in my
> opinon, a piss weak ruling.
> 
> auDA and the ACCC and Josh are now trying to use the
> weak ruling as the
> basis
> for a concerted and continuos attack on Rafferty and
> co.
> 
> Rafferty and co. will simply look at the recent
> events as "battle scars"
> along the journey.
> 
> Whilst I don't agree with their marketing tactics,
> the facts are that they
> are not bound by
> auDA's self made rules.
> 
> My advice, to Josh and Ron, which I am sure you will
> not take, is to let it
> go.
> You have wasted a lot of money for almost nothing.
> 
> Perhaps you have embarked on this anti Rafferty
> compaign to lift your own
> profiles and establish
> your credentials to the importance that you think
> you deserve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Russell CEO. CTO
> Veridas Communications
> www.veridas.net
> 1300 883 638
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Note:
> This communication and any attachments may contain
> privileged and/or
> confidential information intended only for the
> person addressed.  If you
> receive or intercept this communication and are not
> the person addressed,
> please notify me on jr&#167;veridas.net immediately.  No
> confidentiality or
> privilege is waived by the receipt or interception
> of this communication and
> its attachments by person(s) not being the person(s)
> addressed.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chesley Rafferty" <chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au>
> To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 12:03 PM
> Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> temporary setback (Chesley
> Rafferty)
> 
> 
> > Ron
> >
> > Let me try to answer with semantics:
> >
> > moron or fool!
> >
> > Whats the difference?
> >
> >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au> wrote: >
> > Yes, I mean auDA.  And I don't intend to get into
> an
> > > argument on what
> > > constitutes a Federal Regulatory Authority,
> because
> > > that's what auDA is,
> > > even it it's not a Statutory Authority, which is
> a
> > > different matter.
> > >
> > > Contrary to your refutation I cited *exactly*
> from
> > > the 2nd paragraph in the
> > > Age article
> > >
> >
>
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html
> > > - I have no need to "try reading" as you
> suggest.
> > >
> > > Irrespective of the semantics of the paragraph I
> > > cited or the one to which
> > > you refer, the anomaly I noted still stands.
> > >
> > > You either comply with the rules or you don't -
> you
> > > appear to have chosen
> > > the latter.
> > >
> > > Ron Stark
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chesley Rafferty
> > > [mailto:chesleyau&#167;yahoo.com.au]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 10:48 AM
> > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > setback (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Can you please detail what the second "federal
> > > regulatory
> > > > authorities". Could you possibly mean
> auda....???
> > > >
> > > > Also try reading, it says "...vigorously
> defend
> > > its right to
> > > > conduct business without interference from its
> > > competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > It doesnt say that we as you seem to think
> > > "...vigorously
> > > > defend its right to conduct business without
> > > (APPARENTLY
> > > > REMOVE**interference from its**)
> competitors..."
> > > >
> > > > Ches
> > > >
> > > >  --- Ron Stark <ronstark&#167;snapsite.com.au>
> wrote: >
> > > There's an
> > > > interesting anomaly in the article in the
> > > > > Age
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
(http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/19/1082357111573.html)
> > > > > According
> > > > > to that report, Rafferty says  " ... had a
> right
> > > to conduct
> > > > business
> > > > > without interference from competitors and
> would
> > > seek to
> > > > have Federal
> > > > > Court injunctions lifted."
> > > > >
> > > > > I thought that it was complaints from
> consumers
> > > and two federal
> > > > > regulatory authorities that had precipitated
> the
> > > "intereference" of
> > > > > which he complains.
> > > > > That's analogous to a criminal complaining
> that
> > > the police
> > > > interfere
> > > > > with his right to sell drugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my experience, being in business is a
> > > contimual process of
> > > > > responding to "interference from
> competitors".
> > > Since when
> > > > has it been
> > > > > a right to have no competitors, as inferred
> by
> > > Rafferty's statement?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Stark
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Josh Rowe [mailto:josh&#167;email.nu]
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 7:33 AM
> > > > > > To: dns&#167;dotau.org
> > > > > > Subject: [DNS] Scammer says court defeat
> > > temporary
> > > > > setback
> > > > > > (Chesley Rafferty)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scammer says court defeat temporary
> setback
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> 
=== message truncated === 

Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies.
http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Received on Fri Oct 03 2003 - 00:00:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:07 UTC