Text 2439, 94 rader
Skriven 2004-11-29 23:48:34 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
   Kommentar till text 2400 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Moderating
==================
 PL>>>> You, sir, are in breach of common sense and the way things are done.

 DD>>> How things are done varies from place to place. Policy is
 DD>>> the same document at each of those places.

 PL>> The fact that you missed the real meat of it, as indicated by not
 PL>> seeing it quoted and responded to, makes it impossible to discuss it
 PL>> with you.

 DD> Which bit did you conside to be "the meat"?


The part you missed again you sheep fucking moron.

I can't even respond to the rest of your tripe, because after reading it, the
idea I previosuly had that there really can't be people that stupid in the
world was shattered. They realy need to put you in the moron hall of fame!
Maybe they could sell tickets, and give you a trial run if you could outsell
the 6 toed monkey at the freak show.

Ya know... I've seen you around a few years now... I've given you the benefit
of the doubt at times when you "seemed" to be making sense... I now question my
judgement on that.  We've never always agreed, but we've never always disagreed
either... however, on this latest engagement, all I can say, is turn your
fucking computer off and do the world a favor you fucking blind bastard. Go
fuck your sheep, and leave the rest of the world alone.  We're not ready for
somebody of your (a-hem)... uh... (use your immagination)

Get gone glory point... don't dictate while you lactate asshole.

Phil






 PL>> I explained the responsibility of the Sysop to you, but you ignored
 PL>> that portion with an "well it's noit done that way here"...
 PL>> irrelevant if you don't do it that way there or not, as in common
 PL>> practice those methods have and continue to be used.

 DD> Common there perhaps, but not everywhere. Policy is the
 DD> only bit that is common through out the world wide
 DD> Fidonet.

 PL>> By actual practice the extent of responsibility of the SysOp, and the
 PL>> means to satisfy that responsibility, have been defined by use.

 DD> Huh?

 PL>> Policy 4 does not cover ANY of the practices of echomail in the first
 PL>> place, but does mention the responsibility of nodes.  Long before you
 PL>> or I started tromping around the dog pen, these matters were already
 PL>> handled by practice.

 DD> Yes, a practise that varies from place to place (except
 DD> where mandated by policy).

 PL>> So long as the SysOp will handle a sittuation *IF* it arises, the
 PL>> SysOp/Node meets that obligation of responsibility.

 DD> Yes, it is the sysop's responsibility to halt the issue,
 DD> it's his system.

 PL>> Hell, we're SysOp's for crying out loud, not baby sitters and prison
 PL>> guards, or echomail cops.

 DD> We are responsible for what eminates from our systems. If
 DD> we are unable to resolve echomail issues our systems may
 DD> be excised from the echo.

 DD> Are you not capable of being responsible for yourself and
 DD> your system? Do you really need these draconian
 DD> moderators/enforcers to watch over you?

 PL>> Your implying that I am in violation of Pee4 for not monitoring every
 PL>> echomail base on my system is purely assinine, and it should have me
 PL>> riled than, but I only need consider the source of the comment and it
 PL>> becomes purely comical.

 DD> I imply nothing of the sort. I imply that if a problem
 DD> exists with mail eminating from your system, you as
 DD> sysop, are responsible for fixing it.

 DD> Regards,
 DD> David

 DD> --- Msged/LNX TE 06 (pre)
 DD>  * Origin: Fighting for peace is like screwing for
 DD> virginity. (3:640/305)

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: (1:267/169)