Text 10092, 152 rader
Skriven 2004-11-21 18:19:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
 >>  MvdV> By what rule that is binding to /him/ does the moderator
 >>  MvdV> of this echo lose his moderator hat if he chooses to
 >>  MvdV> have the listing expire?

 >> I think you know the answer and are simply trying to build
 >> yet another tortuous case.

 >  MvdV> Oh, I know the answer, I just wanted to check if you knew it too.

 > Amazing how easy it is to anticipate your agenda and methods.

Well, that goes both ways. I see that you still refuse to acknowledge that the
rule "moderator loses his hat when he lets the listing expire" is one of you
own fabrication. There just isn't any binding rule saying so.

Frankly you disappoint me. I would have thought you to not so easily give in. I
expected you to be more creative. Instead you simply ignore the issue. A sign
of weakness.

 >  MvdV> Yes, we have that too here. "De Staatscourant" is
 >  MvdV> the official papaer of record in The Netherlands. It is so
 >  MvdV> because the is what the law says. Where is the "FidoNet
 >  MvdV> law" that makes your list the official registry of echo tags?

 > I never said there was a law that dictated that.

Indeed. And so your claim that the echolist is an "official registry" is one of
your own invention, with nothing to back it up.

 >  MvdV> We keep hearing that from you and your supporters but others tell
 >  MvdV> us different. In fact when I brought up the Moravsik/ZCC_PUBLIC
 >  MvdV> issue, lots of people told me that the distributers recognised
 >  MvdV> Ward Doscche as moderator despite the fact that your list said
 >  MvdV> different.

 > What the Echolist distributors do is their business...they
 > don't tell me how to run the echolist, and I certainly
 > don't tell them how to distribute echomail.

Another cop out. First you tell us what happens if one doesn't list an echo,
now you tell us, you have no part in the distribution. (Which oif course is
true, but than one can not help asking on what you base your statement that
moderators wgo are not listed will not be recognised by the distributors.)

 > I think they arrived at a very creative solution.

Who are "they"?

 > And to set the record straight, the echo in question was listed
 > by Moravisik long before I took over the echolist...

Irrelevant. Your statement that distribitors only recognise the listed
moderator was falsified. That was the point.

 > policy of the echomail distributors concerning ZCC_PUBLIC
 > was in place before I took over the echolist.  So, perhaps
 > you can find Adrian Walker and find out why he didn't
 > delist Moravisik.

Why should I do that? My point was that the distributors - contrary to your
claim - do not always recognise the listed moderator. Adrian Walker's reasons
for not correcting the listing are irrelevant regarding that issue.

 >  MvdV> Frankly Thom, I think you are loading your plate with more than
 >  MvdV> you can eat. And by doing that you are damaging your own
 >  MvdV> credibility. You insist that the distributors will regard the
 >  MvdV> listed moderator as the one authorised to ask for feed cuts. But
 >  MvdV> by allowing Jack Yates to continue to be listed as moderator of
 >  MvdV> this echo you are making them think twice.

 > Perhaps Mr. Yates can request a feed cut and we'll see what
 > happens.  At this point, I'd be willing to volunteer to be
 > cut, since, I have more important things to do with my time
 > that engage in the delightful interchange we are having.

 > Since no one involved in echo distribution has told me you
 > are the official spokesman for them I'll regard your
 > comment as speculation.

Regard it for what you want. It was actually meant a warning. As advice, if you
want it. Take it or leave it, it is free. Your choice.

 >  MvdV> I wonder how many in Z1 would honour a request from
 >  MvdV> Jack Yates to cut my feed. So far the only ones to say
 >  Mvdv> they would are Jack Ytes himself and Roy Witt.

 > Ah, I spoke too soon....I think you should volunteer to
 > have your feed cut.

You have not been paying attention. I already did that some time ago. I said
"try it" to Jack.

Of course he didn't take the bait, he knows very well that he will fail to get
my feed cut. Expecially if it is on a "just because I can" basis.

 >  MvdV> OTOH, I have seen at least one NC who in no uncertain terms has
 >  MvdV> said that he would not honour feed cut requests form Jack Yates.

 > Oh I'm sure that's a possibility....much as there may be
 > people who insist that the moon is made of green cheese....

Thom don't you realise that in this day and age, one can not get a feed cut
unless there is wide consensus? Yes a couple of years ago when people were
dependent on local feeds, effectively limiting their links to three or four
possibilities, one could get a feed cut on authority alone. But now? The
reality is that that you can't get a feed cut if the majority does not
cooperate. Not without totally disrupting the echo.

If Ross cuts my feed (which I doubt h would do) I simply link with Björn
directly and there is no way that Jack or anyone else is going to convince
Björn to cut my feed. And then what? Cut Björn's feed? From what?


 > I'm curious though....was there any significance
 > in your mind that the person was an NC?  As far as echomail
 > distribution goes, I don't believe an NC is any different
 > than a simple leaf node who transports echomail.

In this day and age anyone can transport mail. We don't NEED the so called
backbone nodes any more. (Whoever they are..)

 >> Each of us has a choice about how we participate in the
 >> community....if we choose to rebel against the group, then
 >> we may not be afforded the regard and goodwill that we
 >> expect....but, it's really our choice.

 >  MvdV> I wonder who this group is that I supposedly rebel against. I
 >  MvdV> can't shake the impression that even in Z1 it is not> a majority
 >  MvdV> anymore.

 > Your previous hijack attempts of this echo

I made no attempt to hijack this echo.

 > should be proof enough....

Proof of what?

 > but the moderators who you transgressed against can really address
 > whether or not they feel you're a cooperative member of the community.

Cooperation is a two way street. For two or more parties to cooperate, there
must be some advantage in it for all parties. If not, it is not cooperation but
dictate, repression and submission.

Why should Björn submit to your dictates and have this echo listed? What is in
it for him?

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.50
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)