NODE ee46453bRe: GAK Flap Happening at a Good Time--Journalists Read!
"James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com>Sun, 3 Dec 95 23:00:23 PST
At 12:19 AM 12/4/95 GMT, Dan Weinstein wrote:
>I see, you cannot say that they are really supporting GAK based upon
>the actual statements made, so you simply assert it.
You cannot say they oppose it either. Jim Clark speaks about
GAK using mostly pleasant sounding favorable words.
Let me hear him talk about GAK using plain words.
>Now given point B, I see no reason to expect that they would in the
>past have done much more than they have. Given point C, I see they
>are currently expanding their lobbying.
I do not see that they are currently expanding their lobbying: Indeed
I do not see that they are currently lobbying.
>I sent a message to Netscape after reading the article that started
>this, It simply stated that I wanted clarification on their position
>on GAK and that if they were to support it they would lose a loyal
>customer. I have since been convinced by Jeff Weinstein's posts to
>this list that the company does not support GAK, and in fact they
>oppose it.
I have been convinced that Jeff Weinstein opposes GAK
If his policy represents company policy then I hope to hear
a similar statement signed authoritatively.
I have not seen that yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/
and our property, because of the kind |
of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald
derives from this right, not from the |
arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd@echeque.com
NODE 808bee0aRe: GAK Flap Happening at a Good Time--Journalists Read!
Jeff Weinstein <jsw@netscape.com>Mon, 4 Dec 95 21:40:56 PST
James A. Donald wrote:
>
> At 12:19 AM 12/4/95 GMT, Dan Weinstein wrote:
> >I see, you cannot say that they are really supporting GAK based upon
> >the actual statements made, so you simply assert it.
>
> You cannot say they oppose it either. Jim Clark speaks about
> GAK using mostly pleasant sounding favorable words.
>
> Let me hear him talk about GAK using plain words.
>
> >Now given point B, I see no reason to expect that they would in the
> >past have done much more than they have. Given point C, I see they
> >are currently expanding their lobbying.
>
> I do not see that they are currently expanding their lobbying: Indeed
> I do not see that they are currently lobbying.
>
> >I sent a message to Netscape after reading the article that started
> >this, It simply stated that I wanted clarification on their position
> >on GAK and that if they were to support it they would lose a loyal
> >customer. I have since been convinced by Jeff Weinstein's posts to
> >this list that the company does not support GAK, and in fact they
> >oppose it.
>
> I have been convinced that Jeff Weinstein opposes GAK
>
> If his policy represents company policy then I hope to hear
> a similar statement signed authoritatively.
>
> I have not seen that yet.
It is coming. It may take a few days because many of the
people involved are travelling over the next few days. I will
send something to the list as soon as possible.
--Jeff
--
Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist
Netscape Communication Corporation
jsw@netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw
Any opinions expressed above are mine.