| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 27 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 38:13:52 |
| Calls: | 631 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (29,767K bytes) |
| Messages: | 173,683 |
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >sources to back this up.
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to
sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to
sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate
your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and reference the sources that back up his position.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
Perhaps we should double the fees for his learned posts here?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
Perhaps we should double the fees for his learned posts here?
Ten times would be worth every penny!
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate
your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and >reference the sources that back up his position.
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around -u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the -u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of
the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only >>>>assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them
yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other
professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around -u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the -u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be
bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other
industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of
the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role
will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
None of the above answers the point that you never reference your
assertions that fitting beams across roads, other than attached to the >bridges themselves, is illegal.
In message <10c59fg$1g1n6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:48 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation? >>>>>>
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only
assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and >>>> reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them
yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other
professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around -u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the -u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be
bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other >>> industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of >>> the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role >>> will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
None of the above answers the point that you never reference your
assertions that fitting beams across roads, other than attached to the
bridges themselves, is illegal.
I have referenced the rules in question several times. Indeed I
originally spent about a day researching it and providing links and analysis. However, I keep getting "LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and am completely fed up with the whole thing.
I have referenced the rules in question several times. Indeed I
originally spent about a day researching it and providing links and
analysis. However, I keep getting "LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and am
completely fed up with the whole thing.
ShouldnrCOt be too difficult to repost them then? I have no recollection of >seeing those links. Maybe my memory is fadingrCa..
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around -u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the -u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of
the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation? >>>>>>
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and >>>> reference the sources that back up his position.
Perhaps we should double the fees for his learned posts here?
Ten times would be worth every penny!
WonrCOt such extravagant fees give him delusions of grandeur?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation?
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItrCOs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>> your position. I canrCOt find any references in your posts, only >>>>assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and
reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them
yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other
professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around -u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the -u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be
bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other
industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of
the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role
will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
Roland, yourCOre taking all this, and possibly youself, way too seriously.
In message <10c59fg$1g1n6$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:04:48 on Wed, 8 Oct
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <10c3k91$13shq$1@dont-email.me>, at 17:56:49 on Tue, 7 Oct
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <108jkpp$3slus$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:49 on Tue, 26 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland is continually asserting his position, without any reference to >>>>>>> sources to back this up.
And what is your reference to sources, to back up that accusation? >>>>>>
Pot calling kettle black, I think.
ItAs hard to reference a negative. You ought to be able to substantiate >>>>> your position. I canAt find any references in your posts, only >>>>>assertions.
You need to pay for his time if you want Roland to do the research and >>>> reference the sources that back up his position.
If you want me to compile a set of references, with detailed
explanations (because you can't be bothered to read and understand them
yourself) then yes, I would charge for that, just like any other
professional. A low cost provincial solicitor bills at around u300/hr,
but I'll do you a special rate, if you like. And no, not the u5k a day
that some of my barrister friends enjoy.
In the mean time, I will continue to spend maybe two hours a week
ProBono to post many references here for readers to wade through
themselves. (You've had your two hours worth already, this morning).
Although it's obviously pretty futile because having posted some of the
most interesting/important ones here many times, the reaction from
people whose qualifications are unreferenced, is far too often "LA, LA,
I CAN'T HEAR YOU".
ps. Here's a testimonial (when I left LINX), for people who can't be
bothered to research my professional experience, in that particular
sphere. 20yrs later, I've worked in many other senior roles across other >>> industries:
"Roland has done more than anyone else in the Internet industry to
champion the needs of the industry within government circles. At the
same time he has gained wide recognition from government and the
regulator as someone whose views are respected and valued. His ability
to see through woolly thinking shows him to be the intellectual equal of >>> the best of the civil servants he has dealt with. He and his unique role >>> will be Missed"
Peter Walker. Director, Technology. OFTEL
None of the above answers the point that you never reference your >>assertions that fitting beams across roads, other than attached to the >>bridges themselves, is illegal.
I have referenced the rules in question several times. Indeed I
originally spent about a day researching it and providing links and >analysis. However, I keep getting "LA, LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", and am >completely fed up with the whole thing.