Text 34710, 97 rader
Skriven 2006-07-26 16:18:46 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 34697 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Where where you when the Towers came down?
==================================================
26 Jul 06 14:27, Matt Bedynek wrote to Roy Witt:

 MB> Hello Roy.

 MB> 26 Jul 06 10:27, you wrote to me:

 MB>>> Your first connection attempt here in months (using nonexistent
 MB>>> node numbers):

 RW>> That's odd, they exist here and elsewhere.

 MB> Not in the nodelist issued by a ZC.

That's too bad...the nodelist must be wrong then.

 RW>> There are appliants (sic), but they're particular where they get
 RW>> listed. Net387 is there preference.

 MB> The alleged applicants, if they even exist, are not reachable and you
 MB> refuse to provide me with the means to contact them.

You can use the US Mail...they'll be happy to read that you think they're
non-existant.

 MB>>> Do you have a metered internet connection?

 RW>> Yeup. But what does that have to do with Fidonet?

 MB> That is strange.  rr does not meter bw usage in satx.

Shit happens in the stix. I'm not on RR.

 RW>> Remember when your 'other' nodenumber didn't exist, but you insisted
 RW>> that you be allowed to post in FN_SYSOP anyway?

 MB> That week I filed an application with N106C so I could particpate.

I did too, but the *C's being obstinant about it.

 RW>> That's the node number I want and that seg is a viable net.

 MB> None of the other nodes in that seg, with the exception of you, is
 MB> reachable.

I can reach them...that's all that matters.

 RW>> .. but those listed will still get echomail from me all the same.

 MB> Then you do a disservice to fidonet by leading them to believe you
 MB> are the NC for a net that does not exist.

You do an even bigger service not allowing them to be listed.

 RW>> SA isn't within the calling area of either of those nets...

 MB> Are these other applicants pots only?

What difference does it make, you're not going to list them.

 MB>   But, if it really is an issue, I will setup a local number in satx
 MB> to service the entire area.

Then you won't mind copying their mail to a floppy and hand delivering it
to them.

 RW>> Neither do a lot of other nodes in R19 nets...yet they're listed
 RW>> anyway.

 MB> Nodes that are completely unreachable (e.g. real private nodes)
 MB> should not be listed.  I strongly discourage their use, but, do not
 MB> disallow it if their existence can be verified.

How does anyone else varyfy them? What reason would we have that you're
telling the truth when you say they're varified by you? 382 has 6 out of 9
nodes listed as Pvt, I'll bet you didn't hand varify that they existed.

 MB>>> I will not permit dual listing.

 RW>> Where does it say that in P4?

 MB> Do you suddenly care about policy?

I don't care for it, but you as a *C are sworn to it, or you wouldn't be a
*C. I believe you'll recall the RC who was fired within days after she
was elected for stating her negative position on P4.

 RW>> No, I'd rather it be here in public, ..

 MB> This is the last I have to say about the issue.  Have fun!

No problem...I knew you'd be obstinant enough not to issue a new node in
your region...it must suck to be so intimidated.


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