Text 26019, 82 rader
Skriven 2006-03-01 10:55:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 26008 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Elist
=============
 >>> But it  is not an example of abuse by Thom and the Elist he maintains.

 MVDV>>> I believe it is. See? here we go again.
 >
 >>   Here we go with your making false statements.

 MVDV>> What is false about my statement that I believe the e-list
 MVDV>> was abused in regard with ZCC_PUBLIC?

 >   What part of it had nothing to do with Thom do you not
 > understand? It happened before he became the Elist keeper.

What part of "you are wrong, it did NOT happen before Thom became e-list
keeper" do you not understand?

 >> The entire ZCC_PUBLIC thing happened before Thom became the Elist Keeper.

 MVDV>> No. The conflict only arose when a Z1 sysop (Bob Moravsik
 MVDV>> IIRC) was listed in Thom's list as moderator while it was
 MVDV>> clear that Ward as the creator of the echo had prior rights.

 >    Wrong -- the listing of BM was made into Adrian's list.
 > Thom did not do that.

So here you claim that BM was listed in Adrian's list.

 >> It happened because Ward put an echo into public distribution
 >> and choose to not bother entering that echo tag into either Elist.

 MVDV>> Wrong again. ZCC_PUBLIC was listed in Peter's list.

 >   Only after he saw that BM had listed the echo into Adrian's list.

And now you claim that Ward only listed his area *after* BM made his claim.

That scenario however is impossible. Adrian turned over his list to Peter
remember? So if BM was in Adrian's list, he would also have been in Peter's
list and then Ward wouild not have been able get listed there. Ergo: BM was not
in Adrian's list.

 >>   That case and the others you site are not the fault of the
 >> Elist that Thom maintains.

 MVDV>> In my opinion the e-list was abused.

 >   Not by Thom.

Thom was an assessor at least. See my message to Roy Witt about Thom manually
reviewing the input to the e-list robot.

 MVDV>> So now we have exchanged opinions. Again. Did it lead anywhere?

 >   Appartently not.  You hang onto your vendetta against Thom,
 > and will use any evidence to damn him -- relevant or not.

I consider it relevant, you do not. What's new?

 MVDV>> If the consequence of not using the list is losing the
 MVDV>> moderator hat, then the moderator does not have a free
 MVDV>> choice.

 >   Has that ever happened?   Have there been any real consequences,

Yes there have been real consequences. One example is the refusal of the Z1
sysops - you among them - to respect Ward's wish that ZCC_PUBLIC be a read only
area. One of the reasons for rejecting Ward's wishes was that he was not listed
as moderator in the e-list...

 > other than the fact that people get wrong information?  And that
 > consequence is the fault of the moderator who chose not to provide
 > the correct information.

The moderator can not be at fault as there is no rule saying the moderator has
an obligation to provide information to an e-list keeper. Self appointed or
otherwise. You don't have an echomail policy and you even claim that echomail
is not part of FidoNet. So how can the moderator be at fault when there are no
rules?

Cheers, Michiel

--- Buy Danish
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)