Quoting Gabe Stanton via Dng (dng@???):

> I'll be blunt as well. I think this argument is a strawman because you
> lumped opennic in with other dns providers and dismissed them....

That is not what I said.

Your reading comprehension isssues are not my problem.

> > > You made a case for another possibly good alternative for dns
> > > providers as oppposed to opennic
> >
> > That's not what I said.
>
> Uh okay. Here's the quote. If you weren't talking about a hypothetical
> alternative dns provider here, then I'm not the only one here that's
> confused.

I wasn't talking about OpenNIC _at all_, there.

I was pointing out that contractual privity gives one theoretical
legal advantages (but not very generally useful ones). I am not
responsible for your erroneous readings.


> You lumped opennic in with cisco, google, and various others is what
> you did.

I'm not sure where your misunderstandings are coming from, but I'm
really not interested.