HW: .com

[Rik Rx]

On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 14:34:38 -0400, Paul Mather <paul at GROMIT.DLIB.VT.EDU>
wrote:

Paul, just a brief observation of your comments below.

Obviously, you can only justifiably comment on facts that are in the public
domain, however, I'm sure that you realise that much of what happened to
reach the current situation has gone on behind the scenes for an extended
period. The comment that Andy was "shabbily treated" would be true if he was
the sole recipiant of the letter. However, what Andy received was a COPY of
a note sent to Douglas as the site owner, so that he was in posession of all
the facts.

With reguard to the "Official" declaration, I have a mirror copy of the .com
site for reference. I just checked, and it's there as clear as day.

<<SNIP>>

>
>In Rik's recent posting, he made repeated complaint that Andy had
>flagged the www.hawkwind.com site as "the official" Hawkwind WWW site,
>which is basically the straw that broke the camel's back for them.
>Andy reported here he long since removed any "official" monniker from
>his WWW site (since the launching of Mission Control was the impression
>I got).  So, someone is mistaken, there.  (Let's leave it to the spin
>doctors to win that one.)

No Need - see my comment above.

>
>Also, as you bring up my earlier posting, you hopefully will appreciate
>the point I tried to make that the hawkwind.com domain is registered to
>EBS, not Andy Gilham, and that Andy has no control or ownership over the
>hawkwind.com domain.  Sending a legal volley his way just further
>illustrates the comedy of errors that is general Hawkwind "management"
>(IMHO).  Asking Andy to "hand over the domain" is like asking me or you
>to hand it over.  We can't.  We have no authority to do so.  He may
>control the WWW site to which www.hawkwind.com points, but he doesn't
>control the hawkwind.com domain (domain != host).

I find it hard to believe that you really thought the band would really act
in that manner. Once again, I repeat that the letter was *copied* to Andy
for reference as a matter of courtesy. The letter was *of course* sent to,
and aimed at the site's owners. You appear to have mistakenly assumed an all
out attack was made on andy who just administers the site. For your
information I have been in contact with today, and as such, am on good terms
with him.

>
>I do think that ownership of hawkwind.{com,net,org} should belong the
>Hawkwind.  (They should also try and get hawklords.{com,net,org}, IMHO.)
>But, issuing an ultimatum to Andy Gilham is not the way to go about it
>(IMHO).
>
>Reading the posts on here recently, I can't help feel that whether by
>accident or design, Hawkwind have garnered themselves bad publicity over
>they way this has played out.  I may be mistaken in this perception, but
>I make no other observation than that.

This would be true, if the facts were as you assumed. Your observations are,
however, quite innacurate as they are based on quite limited information.

I hope this clarifies things (yet again).


Rx