Text 752, 137 rader
Skriven 2004-10-11 23:09:50 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
    Kommentar till text 718 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/09]: Fidonews Information
====================================================
 >> > If I recall correctly, you attempted to wrest control of
 >> > HAM echo from the listed moderator.  The attempt failed.

 >>  MvdV> That was not a hijack. I took charge of an echo that was
 >>  MvdV> abandoned by its moderator.

 >> The echo was not abandoned by the moderator...

 MvdV> Yes it was. The rules posting had stopped,

how did you determine that they had stopped?

 MvdV> the moderator was nowhere to be seen

so? not all moderators are visible in their echos... many do all their
moderating via netmail with no postings in the echo... they used to, anyway...

 MvdV> and had dissappeared from the nodelist.

one doesn't need to be in the nodelist to be a moderator...

 MvdV> He did not emerge as a user on another system either.
 MvdV> He was gone.

evidently not as he is (still) here, today ;)

 >> you tried to make the case that it was, and not only did the
 >> moderator, Roy Witt, disagree with your premise,

 MvdV> The ex-moderator did not agree or disagree, he was absent!
 MvdV> That his absence ater turned out to be of temporary nature and
 MvdV> that he give his opinion after the fact is irrelevant.

no, it is /part of/ the fact...

 >> but many of the echo participants didn't agree with you.

 MvdV> Irrelevant.

obviously not... one wonders why the police question witnesses if their POV is
not relevent??

 >>  MvdV> Completely in agreement with the
 >>  MvdV> rules and customs here.

 >> But the echo that you attempted to wrest away from Mr. Witt
 >> had for years operated under the rules that are recognized
 >> by the ditribtion systems and the echolist.

 MvdV> So? Where does it say that therefore it has to be that way
 MvdV> forever?

look at it this way... say you did get the echo... what then? would you have
kept up the elisting? if not, the echo would have been dropped from
distribution by most distribution systems... what then?

 MvdV> By your own words, it is the moderator's choice. So a new
 MvdV> moderator came along and he choose to do thing different.

you weren't the new moderator... for one thing, you didn't wait long enough...

 >>  MvdV> The attempt did indeed fail because the (mainly Z1)
 >>  MvdV> participants and the Z1 distributors would not accept
 >>  MvdV> a moderator that choose to ignore the elist.

 >> No, it's more correct to say that the attempt(and I see
 >> you're agreeing that you attempted to wrest control of the
 >> echo away from the listed moderator)

 MvdV> I see that you are putting words into my mouth. I did NOT
 MvdV> agree to the "wrest control" part. Merely that the attempt to
 MvdV> assume the moderator position failed.

is that not the same thing?

 MvdV> Ans I object to the use of "wrest control" in this contexts. i
 MvdV> find it abusive and annoying. Please refrain from using this
 MvdV> term in relation to my attempt to assume moderatorship of the
 MvdV> HAM echo. Or any other echo where this might occur in future.

 MvdV> Consider that some toime ago I used the term "echolist
 MvdV> maffia". You asked me to stop using the term and I agreed. If
 MvdV> that too turns out to be a one way street, I might reconsider.

oh good grief...

 >> failed because the distribtion systems have a requirement
 >> that the moderator of an echo they carry is listed as the
 >> moderator in the echolist.

 MvdV> So then why didn't they drop it from the backnone?

because it was still listed...

 >> You couldn't become listed as moderator in the Echolist
 >> database because the listing was current

 MvdV> If it is merely a datbase for information purposes, it was
 MvdV> obviously not "current" as it did not reflect the fact that mr
 MvdV> Witt had disappeared.

obviously not ;)

 >> and you did not have the password.

 MvdV> I do not need the password if I do not wish to use the system.

you do if you wish to correct the record...

 >>  MvdV> So much for moderator's choice. Thank you for
 >>  MvdV> proving my point.

 >> The moderator has a choice of particpating in a system and
 >> following the rules of that system.  Mr, Witt, the listed
 >> moderator, had the choice to have his echo carried and
 >> having it listed in the echobase.

 MvdV> You are contradicting yourself. If you refer to the person
 MvdV> that is listed as the moderator, you can not say that he/she
 MvdV> has that choice. His right of choice only remains valid as
 MvdV> long as he chooses to remain listed. That is not free choice.

and you are twisting things with some wired logic... the system is simple, well
known, well tested, and been in place for 15+ years...

 >> If Mr. Witt had decided not to exercise his choice to
 >> participate, you or anyone else willing to follow the rules
 >> could have listed the echo.

 MvdV> I was not interested in listing the echo.

then what were you going to do with it? let it fall out of distribution and
loose the traffic and thus disrupting it?

)\/(ark

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)