Text 44747, 110 rader
Skriven 2006-12-24 16:49:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 44663 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: The moderator here??
============================
Hello Dale!

On Sunday December 24 2006 00:19, you wrote to me:

 DS>>    The previous editors of fidonews were not users of Björn's
 DS>> system.

 MVDV>> And you are sure they are not now? How can you be so sure?

 DS>   I can be sure that not all of them exist.  And I can be sure that
 DS> some of the ones that do exist give other contact information
 DS> for themselves.

So what? Since when can someone have only one unique contact address? I habve
two FidoNet adresses and over half a dozen e-mail adresses.

 DS>>    Who is to say that Phipps is not a real name?

 MVDV>> I have yet to see a country that accepts a single word as
 MVDV>> an official name on a birth certificate.

 DS>   Your point is?  There is nothing that says that people can only use
 DS>   the "official name" that appears on their birth certificate.

So what is stopping someone form using the name "editors emeriti"?

 DS>>   It is obvious that Editors Emeriti is not a real name,

 MVDV>> Is it? How can you be so sure?

 DS>    Because Björn said it was not -- he said it was a collective group
 DS> of all the previous moderators of Fidonews.  You are grasping at
 DS> straws.

You are the one grasping at straws. I gave you numerous examples of similar
occurences of alias reperesenting either single people, or a loosely defined
group of people. You are just too stubborn to admit that disallowong "editors
emeriti" while allowong all the ther examples I gave is just an arbitrary hoc
decision.

 MVDV>> http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/z.htm#Z1_ROUTING

 MVDV>> Now which version is the authoritive one?

 DS>   I have the version that is officially sent out over the filebone
 DS> each month.

Why is that more authoritive than what is on the web page?

 MVDV>>> Wrong. As you have been told, 2:2/2 is the contact info.

 DS>>    I doubt that it is.   If I sent a message to Zorch at 2:2/2,
 DS>>    how would it get to him?

 MVDV>> Why do you worry about that? Have you ever tried it?

 DS>>   Ditto for Henk and many other previous editors.

 MVDV>> Did you try it?

 DS>    I had no need to try it.

So you do not know for sure it does not work.

 DS>>    However, my recollection of the discussion that took
 DS>> place during the "Editors Emeriti" incident is that Björn
 DS>> included *all* former editors in that group collection.

 MVDV>> And of course - since this fitted your agenda - you took his
 MVDV>> word as gospel.

 DS>    Why would I have doubted that Björn did not mean what he said.

Becaue you *do* doubt it when he says things that do not fit your agenda. Like
that mail adressed to Editors Emeriti *will* be delivered.

As I see it, the only error that Björn made is the he included the emeriti
deceased. But of course that only came up *after* Thom had arbitrarily refused
it and the discussion started.

 MVDV>> Well, my recollection is that Björn stated that mail
 MVDV>> addressed to "Editors emeriti" at 2/2/2 *would* be
 MVDV>> delivered. So why do you now doubt his word?

 DS>    That was well after the argument started.

Exactly! The argumenet would naver have started in the first place had Thom not
arbitraly refused it.

 DS>>> AND they did not consider themselves to be moderators of the
 DS>>> echo, they had all passed that task on to someone else.

 MVDV>>> Irrelevant. There is no requirement for a comod to
 MVDV>>> publically accept the position.

 DS>     Why are you bringing Co-moderators into the discussion.

Because obviously the editors emeriti were meant to be just that: comods.

 DS>   The attempt was to list them as moderators.  The Elist does not have
 DS> an entry for Co-moderators.

Another silly and arbitrary restriction. The reality is that many moderators
have comods. No matter what the e-list says.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)