Heard a rumor that the 7 dwarves are under the airport in Denver, and why the company moved there...
I wonder if the 'magic' has anything to do with a connection between the 7 dwarves and control of the internet at ICANN.
To: TEXOKIE
Remember the 2 big Monza computers of the derps which figured in a lot of early drops were Snow White and the 7 Dwarves
Heard a rumor that the 7 dwarves are under the airport in Denver, and why the company moved there...
I wonder if the ‘magic’ has anything to do with a connection between the 7 dwarves and control of the internet at ICANN.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
texokie
RE @SNOWDEN - rolling off previous discussion about #3053
I had not heard that Denver Airport connection to the Snow White and 7 Dwarves computers.... I had been thinking Utah. But with recent drops about the airport, and the airport being so very Derpish, what you are writing makes a LOT of sense!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICANN
Since ICANN is the entity Obama “gave” the internet to, I really like what you propose as a possibility, eldoradude.
I was just looking at the SNOWDEN drops.
Pete, you were wondering who was in the WH office FB or Goog. I can’t answer that right now, but ran across this in drop #1911:
“...It should be clear in this context ES = @Snowden
It should be clear based on prev drop re: game comms why ES was included.
It should be clear that ‘ES’ was used in both (GOOG + @Snowden) drops to est a link.
Q”
So my guess would be GOOG.
I remembered that Snowden had been given a countdown and high sign as to when to pull the trigger on his device and the there were elements of the net that went down or slowed greatly just following that.
Here is some possible sauce to confirm that recollection:
#601 - Q is telling him to do something
@Snowden
How’s Russia?
Almost time.
Q
#903 and #920
qmap.pub anons call these “Twitter in Receivership Stringer”
Both refer to @Snowden in somewhat obscure language, but #920 states this:
“Another coincidence @Snowden Tweets after the ‘24 Twitter’ requirement?
Public view.
You have more than you know.
Q”
#915 lists the projects @snowden leaked
#1130
An anon posts the proof that Lifelog project killed the same day FB formed:
“...Check the dates. Pentagon kills LIFELONG project same day Facebook is formed.
>>1003248
Finder of this should apply to NSA.
Q”
The above is possible Q trolling:
I seem to recall at the time that it was thought by anons that @snowden is the anon who supplied that info and “should apply to the NSA.”
#1124
This one is the meaty sauce I was recalling. @Snowden clearly was being given some instructions regarding FB. Q seems to be telling @Snowden to “drop” whatever it is that he has access to AFTER MZ testifies:
“@Snowden
Yes.
Testify then drop.
We have it all.
These people are stupid.
Fireworks.
POTUS’ weekly address.
END.
Q”
I also seem to recall that there were drops confirming that there were ‘net slow downs and stoppages happening after @Snowden performed the above.
This is fascinating -
https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/accra/captioning-afternoon-14mar02.htm
ICANN Board Meeting in Accra Real-Time Captioning
14 March 2002 - Afternoon Session
Note: The following is the output of the real-time captioning taken during the afternoon session of the ICANN Board meeting held 14 March 2002 in Accra, Ghana. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the session, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
Discussion of the .pro suffix for domain names on the internet.
-excerpt-
Mr. President puts that on the table.
Is there a second?
Jonathan Cohen.
Is there any discussion of this particular resolution? Amadeu.
Amadeu Abril i Abril: Well, yesterday, I raised some small concerns regarding the nature of some of – some specific clauses here. And I don't know how we'll proceed here.
Indeed, I was shooting live the questions and was not able to find – the policy level for ICANN is the clause 2-6, appendix g, that somehow the door is open. And open door stands to raise expectations about future change in the nature of the TLD in which the proposal to structure top-level domain pro, – with equivalent semantic levels, such as dot law, dot net, with avocatto and others, besides being able to open that on some functional levels, which nobody discussed, was in the original proposal, or new levels needed to add because of the semantic problems that weren't realized at the very beginning, now there is a third possibility that wasn't in the original proposal and that raises a policy question about the possibility of having in the future names registered at the second level instead of at the third level, and having a combined utility in which sometimes names are in the second, sometimes the third, as the same for a functional TLD.
I think it somehow breaches the logic of a top-level domain that was whole different boxes for different professions, having them all under dot pro directly. I don't think it's a good idea for the domain itself.
But my problem is that, very often, when we discuss domain name policy here, we are discussing among experts. And we think everything is easy to understand. But, you know, the domains we haven't really sent to the market. In my own observation, have created a lot of confusion because of the vast differences in policies, times, (inaudible) claims, whatever. It's something like VeriSign and the seven dwarfs. And if you can remember which is sleepy and which one is chief and which one is the red one.
But some of these dwarfs are really strange and bizarre.