> What you say could be expressed (again it's a metaphor) like this:

If you're interested in swaying the opinion in your favour you
would do well by avoiding arguing by using metaphors or colurful
paraphrasing, and instead argue the individual items you
apparently so very much disagree with.

> As for the takeovers, it's not that I wouldn't get into details. My
> previous employer has acuired probably over 100 other companies. Every case
> was particular and some took years to integrate. You can not sell the IPs
> before integrating their network.
>
> In all the situations, even when we know there was an agreement for
> acquisition of company X, it wasn't absorbed overnight. The process is
> complex and involves approvals from various authorities, integration of the
> network, migration of customers and in the end you can draw the line and
> mark as unused the as number, IPs, computers, etc.

You conveniently side-stepped answering the case I described.  Note
that I wrote "*solely* for the purpose of of getting a /22...".  In
that case there would be no customers to move or networks to merge.  I
would say it is incumbent upon you to justify that we should keep this
loophole as wide as a truck in the policy.

The 24-month holding period puts a damper on this avenue of abuse
against the intention of the last /8 policy, and would put a little
bit more longevity into the availability of the resources under that
policy.  It may be that this diminishes your company's prospects of
near-future income, to which I would say that basing your buisness on
the abuse of something which is perceived as a common resource is
perhaps not worthy of so much sympathy?

Regards,

- Håvard