Text 25882, 189 rader
Skriven 2006-02-23 12:54:55 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 25831 av Joe Delahaye (37799.fidonews)
Ärende: Elist
=============
22 Feb 06 16:06, Joe Delahaye wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>  JD>   I did not bitch about that part at all.
 >>
 >> That was the reason you got your first warning, according to my
 >> archive.
 JD> Made up to suit your memory no doubt.

No, I have the archive to refresh my memory. You're defending yourself
with bad memory.

 >>  JD> As a matter of fact any bitching I did, was done after I came
 >>  JD> back from my voluntary departure.
 >>
 >> You didn't voluntarily leave until you received your second warning in
 >> the echo and were threatened with a feed cut because you wouldn't
 >> leave, according to my archive.

 JD> The feed cut threat arrived prior to any warning at all.

Too bad. That's what routed netmail does sometimes.

 JD> You never notified me, but only Tony Summerfelt.

Wrong.

Ä NETMAIL (1:10/22) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ NETMAIL Ä
 Msg  : #383 [626]                          Snt
 From : Roy Witt                            1:10/22    31 Jan 02  18:38:32
 To   : Joe Delahaye                        1:249/303
 Subj : Sysop's only
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
* Replying to a msg in FN_SYSOP (FN_SYSOP)

Hello Joe.

31 Jan 02 14:21, you wrote to me:

 JD> At 16:10 on 01-3002, you wrote:

 RW>  JD>> As it is now yours, I await your message telling us you fixed
 RW>  JD>> it
 RW>>  That won't happen. How I run the echo, how I do the moderating is
 RW>> not within the echo.  Keep that in mind while you're posting here.
 RW>> If yo

 JD> I see.  Its ok for you to bother the moderator while you were a mere
 JD> user, but now its not ok for anyone to do the same to you.  Figures.

First warning, Joe. Keep it up.


-+- Bogusmail v2.03

 JD> He and I had a long chat about it.

So did he and I.

 JD>  The only reason he went along with it was because you threatened to
 JD> cut the whole net.

Of course, your being the net hub didn't have anything to do with that.

 JD>  and for a very poor reason.

The reason was within the rules of the echo...

 JD> This from the guy who continuously argued with every moderator prior
 JD> to himself.

It isn't my fault that you were a very poor moderator who let everything
slide.

 >>  JD>  (your 3 'warnings' all arriving in ONE package).
 >>
 >> Such was the state of routed echomail; you never knew where it went,
 >> let alone when it arrived there.

 JD> I dont think it had anything to do with routed echomail, considering
 JD> that these were 3 netmails.

You're right, they were netmails, not echomail. Routed netmail via ERN...

 >> You were given enough ample warning in the echo, per my archive.

 JD> Not likely.  There will be enough people still reading this that were
 JD> there then, who can tell both of us that they remember different then
 JD> either or us.

Do they have the archive to back them up? I do.

 >>  JD> The only reason I agreed was to stop my downlinks from losing the
 >>  JD> echo.
 >>
 >> Had you not agreed, you would have lost your link, per my archive.
 >> Fortunately for you, your NC, agreed to help with your complience when
 >> I asked him to request that you curtail your BS.

 JD> No, you told him you were going to cut my feed.

Ä REAL_Z1C (1:10/22) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ REAL_Z1C Ä
 Msg  : #364 [774]                          Uns Pvt Loc
 From : Roy Witt                            1:10/22    03 Feb 02  15:26:51
 To   : Tony Summerfelt                                03 Feb 02  17:20:48
 Subj : The moderator
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
Hello Tony.

03 Feb 02 14:14, you wrote to me:

 ts> *** Answering a msg posted in area FN_SYSOP (FN_SYSOP).

 ts>  # On Sun, Feb 03/02 at 08:38 AM, Roy Witt wrote to Joe Delahaye:

 RW>> If I get no cooperation from Tony,

 ts> i honour all feed cut requests. regardless of the bias.

There's only bias on Joe's part.  All he had to do was behave in a manner
in which I asked him to before I was elected. He chose to make a case of
it, not me.

 ts> my only concern is that joe has a downlink who reads the echo in
 ts> question. if joe can refrain from posting is there a problem sending
 ts> the echo to him as he is a net249 hub?

Joe's on vacation, not booted from the echo.  His downlink doesn't have
any worries about that. At least, not until such time as Joe decides to
push this further.

It's really not up to me, it's up to Joe.

If Joe wants to make a case for his eventual feed cut, all he has to do
is continue in the manner he's been doing.  Otherwise, he's welcome to
come back to the echo after his vacation, as long as he behaves himself
and honors moderator requests to leave certain subjects out of his posts.

By now he's probably very aware that the Z1C's firing of Lesley-Dee and
your appointment as R12C is off topic, as well as how the moderator
performs his duties in the echo.  If not, he's got two weeks to think
about it.


... A butterfly is a self-propelled flower.
-+- Bogusmail v2.03


 >>  JD> Whatever bitching was done before was for something else, and
 >>  JD> I no longer recall what.
 >>
 >> It was about your perception that I changed the rules. Which,
 >> according to the echo rules was at the moderator's discression. Your
 >> arguement was that the moderator had to ask the sysops for permission,
 >> which the echo rules didn't state. Anyway, your inability to read for
 >> comprehension was why you thought the rules had been changed, when
 >> they were only reformatted and a clause added that required the
 >> moderator to elist the echo (which is what I stated I would do if
 >> elected).

 JD> Oh, you DID change the rules.  Not just reformatted them.  I no
 JD> longer remember what it was now.

I can post the rules as you sent them to me, and how I reformatted them
here if you want.

 JD>   Perhaps it was the reformatting of the rules which changed the
 JD> meaning of some.

Not in the least. The reformatting merely made them more readable.

 >> The only thing the rules didn't allow to be changed was the part about
 >> the distribution of the echo.

 JD> Not according to my, and others, interpetation.

LOL! You have no idea what you're talking about.

 >> If you need any varification of this, I can send you the archive.
 >>

 JD> No need.  Like log files, they can be made up.

Fortunately, I'm honest enough that I've never had to do that.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)