Text 1568, 71 rader
Skriven 2004-11-06 10:59:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1565 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
 >  MVDV> It is not my problem that that the elist is unable to make
 >  MVDV> the distiction. If the elist syas I am the moderator, the
 >  MVDV> information in the elist is incorrect, I am the co-moderator.

 >   How can you say that the elist is incorrect when *YOU*
 > are the one who entered the information?

I can say it is incorrect, by simply saying so.

 >  >    2. in the message posted by Earl Truss in the echo
 >  > naming you as one of the moderators

 >  MVDV> No, I was appointed CO-moderator.

 >   Which is exactly what I said -- you are a moderator of the echo.

CO-moderator.

 >  MVDV> do it himself. The mere fact that I have the password does
 >  MVDV> not make me the moderator. Ever heard of third party updates?

 >    Yep -- they are done all the time, and those who do them
 > do not name themselves as one of the moderators unless that is what
 > they are.

Actually, it was not me that put it there. It was already there when I made the
update. I merely did a "touch" to update the time stamp.

 >  >   You are *A* moderator of that echo, and it is
 >  > hypocritical of you to attempt to deny it.

 >  MVDV> Nevertheless I am denying it. I am merely the comoderator.

 >   See above.

See above.

 >  MVDV> If I concede (as I do) that the science echo has a Z1
 >  MVDV> moderator and therefore should be subject to Z1 rules, you
 >  MVDV> scold me for not following EP1.

 >  MVDV> If I were to follow EP1 you scold me for trying to impose
 >  MVDV> my set of rules on others.

 >  MVDV> So what the h*ll DO you want?

 >   It's not a matter of imposing rules on anyone else.  It
 > is a matter of following the duties laid out by the policy
 > you claim to honor. It is a matter of being consistent -- which
 > you are not.

I AM consistent. According to EP1, there is only ONE moderator. And it is Earl
Truss. Not me. So obviously it is not MY duty to post monthly rules. You can
not reproach me for not following my own rules.

It is only according to YOUR rules that I am the moderator. But According to
YOUR rules, there is no duty to post monthly rules. You van not reproach me for
not following those rules.

It is you that is inconsistent here. You are mixing two sets of mutually
incompatible rules to make it look I do not follow an obligation. While the
alleged obligation does not follow from either set of rules when taken by
themselves.


You are the hypocrite.

Cheers, Michiel

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