Text 1759, 95 rader
Skriven 2004-11-12 10:05:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1744 av Jack Yates (1:3613/1275)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
 >>> However, I also would hope that the echolist would
 >>> be used as well. (Only to satisfy the International
 >>> nature of the echo.) Not required, but not a bad idea.

 >MV> Why? Why must an international echo be subject to a Z1 tradition? If
 >MV> so, why should Z2 users of a Z1 echo be denied the protection of EP1?
 >MV> (as is a Z2 tradition) Or this another one of those one way streets?

 > ISTR that you were one of the first, if not *the* first to
 > insist that the "way it's done" in Z1 does not apply to
 > this echo and only EP1 carries any weight here.

It was Robert Couture that insisted echos should be ran according to the "rules
of origin". "Origin" being defined by the residence of the moderator. I merely
pointed out that in consequence *this* echo should be run according to Ep1 as
those are the rules of Z2, the zone of residence of the moderator.

 > A two-way street would be lovely, but you have not supported that
 > idea in the past.

Oh, but I have. I have conceded that the SCIENCE echo should be run according
to Z1 rules.

 > On the rare occasion that I chose to act in the capacity of
 > Moderator, you were the first to exhibit defiance.

You are not the moderator. So naturally you meet with defiance if you pose as
such.

 > While those on my side of the pond who were involved in the
 > discussion that had gotten out of hand netmailed me and
 > said that they would cease, and for the most part did so,
 > while you did not.

No and I won't. any attempts from your side to make me cease will be counter
productive. You are not the moderator.

 > Seems to me that it's you that doesn't want the two-way
 > street.

It seems to me that what you want is yet another occasion to have Z1 rules
forced on other zones.

 >MV> If everyone were to do what you preach: respect other zones rules and
 >MV> traditions, there would be no way the fidonews echo could be hijacked.
 >MV> The moderator of the FidoNews echo is the Fidonews editor who
 >MV> presently resides in Z2.

 > ..who moderates not at all,

A silent moderator is not an absent moderator...

 > hence this condition of chaos within the echo.

I don't see chaos. If you think this echo is in chaos, you have the choice to
stop participating.

 >MV> But Jack Yates did not respect that:

 > He doesn't have to; Jack Yates saw the possibility that the
 > Z1 backbones might not continue distribution of this echo
 > and so listed it in the manner that is expected by the
 > echolist.

If your only concern was to safeguard the distribution, you should have listed
it in the name of "FidoNews Editor".

 >MV> How about elections for the echolist keeper?

 > The echolist is not exclusive to Fidonet and is not a part
 > of Fidonet; as such cannot be "governed" by Fidonet.

Right. It is not part of FidoNet. So why should I /as a user of this echo/
consider it authoritative as to who the moderator is?

 > Frankly, I don't care who's in charge of the Elist, if an
 > echo is dropped, I'm not going to distribute it.

That is you choice. It is your system, you decide what echos you carry. If you
decide not to carry echos that are not in the echolist that is your decision.
It is a stupid decision, but it is your stupid decision.

You have no right to attempt to make others do the same.

 > Fidonews was dropped so I relisted it.

 > Live with it.

I can live with it. You live with the fact that I do not recognise you as
moderator.

Cheers, Michiel

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