Text 1503, 99 rader
Skriven 2004-11-03 17:58:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1498 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/0
============================
 > >> You based it on Z2 rules. According to Z1 rules, he was
 > >> still the moderator.

 >  MvdV> And according to Z2 rules he was not. So we have a stand off..

 > But.  You are willing to agree that the SCIENCE echo is
 > moderated by a Z1 sysop and that Z1 rules apply.  That
 > means the echolist is in force.

No, it does not mean that. Earl Truss is not the moderator of the science echo
because the echolist says so, he is the moderator of the science echo because
he was elected as such by the participants.

The echolost is not part of Z1 rules. How can it be? It is not even part of
FidoNet?

 > Therefore the same must be said for the HAM echo because
 > the echolist still listed Roy Witt as moderator.

No.

 > Tell me what the difference is.

See above.

 > If you want to have respect for Z2 rules when it comes to
 > Z2 moderated echoes, you had better be willing to accept
 > the same when it comes to Z1 echoes.

 > Speaking of which, you stated that the SCIENCE echo
 > originated in Z1, yet when it comes to the HAM echo, you
 > argued that there is no origination.

 > You cannot have it both ways, Michiel.  Which is it?

The science echo has a moderator who resides in Z1. The HAM echo did not have a
mderator at the time.

 > >> So, what you are saying is that it dependent on your agenda
 > >> what rules you will follow.

 >  MvdV> No. You don't see the difference do you? The
 >  MvdV> moderator of the science> echo is Earl Truss. There
 >  MvdV> is no disagreement about that.
 >
 > The moderator of the HAM echo is Roy Witt.

At the time there was no moderator in the HAM echo.

 >  MvdV> Anyway, there is no use in continuing this argument.
 >  MvdV> Whatever I say or do, I can not undo what was done
 >  MvdV> two years ago. I do not have a time machine. So you
 >  MvdV> will just have to accept that two years ago something
 >  MvdV> happened that you did not agree with.

 > You could admit that you were wrong.

Then I would commit muself to telling an untruth.

 > Everyone in the HAM echo thinks you are wrong.

That does not make it so.


 > Yes, how about admitting that you were wrong.

No. How about you admitting you are wrong?

(In declaring this a Z1 echo)

 > And the ONLY reason I say you are wrong comes down to
 > learning how to respect each Zone.  So far you have been
 > expecting Zone 1 to respect Zone 2 rules ONLY.  You have
 > stated that you are unwilling to follow Zone 1 rules (or
 > agree to them.)

O the contrary. I have stated that I will respect the fact that the SCIENCE
echo is moderated by someone from Z1 and that therefore Z1 rules should aplly.

 > Then you should apologize because the HAM echo is
 > moderatoed by A Z1 moderator so the HAM echo should be run
 > by Z1 rules.  There is no difference between the two echoes
 > except that one is run by someone you dislike.

I will not apologize for something that was 100% ok by the rules that applied
to me at the time.

 > just because you have a grudge against the moderator.

That had noting to do with it.

But as there is no way that I can convince you of that, I will no longer
respond to messages where you bring up te HAM echo incident again. That horse
is dead for two years, if you want to keep flogging it, you do it on your own.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)