Text 889, 287 rader
Skriven 2004-10-15 12:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 861 av mark lewis (1:3634/12)
Ärende: FidoNews 21:38 [09/09]: Fidonews Information
====================================================
 >  >>  >> how did you determine that they had stopped?

 >  >>  MvdV> By monitoring the echo.

 >  >> for how long?

 >  MvdV> Long enough.

 > evidently not...

As evidenced by what?

 >  >> what determined how long before deciding it was abandoned?
 >
 >  MvdV> Among other things: the disapearance of the
 >  MvdV> moderator from the nodelist.

 > shortsighted...

I don't think so.

 >  >> did you ever think that the rules might be being posted but
 > >> not making it to your system for some reason?

 >  MvdV> Yes, I considered that. I concluded that that was
 >  MvdV> not the problem.

 > by what means was that conclusion arrived at?

By deduction and the given that the system of the previous moderator was
off-line.

 >  MvdV> The official means of communication in FidoNet is
 >  MvdV> netmail. If that is no longer available one is
 >  MvdV> officially incommunicado.

 > we're not talking about "anything official"...

O yes, we are.

 > i suppose you're going to tell us that those users on systems
 > that do not allow access to netmail are incommunicado?

The are indeed. Not that it matters because for users the sysop is responsible.

 >  MvdV> It later turned out that the absence was of a temporary
 >  MvdV> nature. Irrelevant. Absence is absence.

 > while that may be true, simple absence doesn't mean that
 > the echo was given up or abandoned... that's a fact...

It is yourr opinion, not fact.

 > >> the point was about whether he agreed or disagreed... keep
 > >> your eye on the ball, please... absent or not, he disagreed
 > >> with your premise... that's a fact...

 >  MvdV> The /moderator/ did not agree or disagree.

 > evidently he did disagree... whether you saw or heard that
 > is another matter altogether...

The person that disagreed was no longer the moderator. So my statement stads:
the /moderator/ did not disagree.

 >  MvdV> At the time I took over, he was no longer the moderator.
 >  MvdV> Only when Roy Witt surfaced again after some time, did
 >  MvdV> Roy Witt express disagreement.

 > that you saw, yeah... however, i'm sure that roy was in
 > contact with others via some means and was aware of the
 > situation...

If he was aware of the situation, he neglected to to something about it.
(Plenty of opportunity)

 > >> seems to me that you were being given the facts by those
 > >> witnesses... they were telling you that RW was the moderator...

 >  MvdV> They were giving their opinion. Opinions aren't fact.
 >
 > seems that they were expressing both... fact and opinion...
 > the fact that roy was the moderator of that echo

That is not a fact, it is an opinion. (And an opinion that contradicts the
facts).

 >  MvdV> That is why the police check statements of witnesses,
 >  MvdV> they don't just take their word for it.

 > well, of course... and when many of the witnesses say the
 > same thing, it is looked at as being the more accurate...

That depends. If 25 bar mates of the suspect all say he was in the bar, but he
was recorded on video at the bank, I kown what they will believe....

 > its not tossed out as being less accurate or invalid as you
 > seem to have done and appear to be doing now...

See above.

 > >> why? why cut off all those members of the echo? what do/did
 > >> you have against them?

 >  MvdV> How does not maintaining the listing cut off anyone?

 > because the 'bones would have stopped carrying the echo
 > when the listing lapsed... that would have cut folk off...

Or not. I get conflicting information regarding that aspect.

 >  MvdV> or could it perhaps be that the claim that the moderator is
 >  MvdV> free to make use of the services of the echolist is not such a
 >  MvdV> free choice as the term "free choice" would suggest?

 > i sure wish you'd get that other eye back and start using
 > both of them... moderators have a choice of using the elist
 > or not... if they do not, then it is possible that their
 > unlisted echo will not be carried by (some of) the
 > distribution systems... it is the moderator's choice to
 > elist and enjoy the free transportation and wide
 > distribution or to not elist and not enjoy those
 > capabilities... it is that simple... why can't you
 > understand it? which word is too big for your (simple?)
 > mind to understand?

I understand it perfectly. The moderator is as free in his choce as any living
being is free to choose not to breath.

 > >>  MvdV> Correction: by most distribution systems in Z1. The
 > >>  MvdV> distribution systems in the rest of the world would
 > >>  MvdV> not have been affected.

 > >> i don't think so... i know that most of the big 'bones do
 > >> follow the addition and removal of echos by other systems
 > >> and they add or remove them from their distribution, too...
 >
 >  MvdV> Think what you want. It is not how they main distributors
 >  MvdV> here operate.

 > we're not talking about over there... we're talking about
 > all distributors and the plain and simple fact that some
 > (most?) users of that particular echo would have been cut
 > off...

Certainly not most. For one, it would only have affected the users in Z1.
Fidonet is bigger than Z1.

 > >> carries everything they are after... for one thing, is
 > >> save[s|d] on the cost... for another, it save[s|d] on the
 > >> complexity of their setup...
 >
 >  MvdV> What you are saying amounts to: In practise the
 >  MvdV> moderator has no choice but to dance to the whims
 >  MvdV> of the echolist mafia.

 > no, that is not what it amounts to... in fact, if it is
 > anyone that is causing the dancing, it is the backbones
 > since it is /their/ requirement that the echo be elisted...

As I said: echolist mafia.

 > >>  MvdV> I waited until the required minimum period for posting of
 > >>  MvdV> rules had expered and i waited until the previous moderator
 > >>  MvdV> dropped from the nodelist and became uncontactable.

 >  >> that's not long enough...

 >  MvdV> Your /opinion/ is noted.

 > not just mine and not just opinion... many others see it
 > and it

That does not make it fact.

 > is also fact as proven by the evidence... that
 > evidence being that roy did disagree with your assessment,

Roy's opinion is just another opinion.

 > that roy is listed in the nodelist,

He was not at the time.


 > >> did you consider that there may have been a problem with
 > >> the netseg and another problem with echo linkage?

 >  MvdV> Yes, I considered that.
 >
 > that, alone, should have caused you to wait longer...

I considered it. I decided it was not the problem.

 >  >> MvdV> No, it is not. "wrest control" implies foul play, something
 > >> MvdV> that goes against the rules. What I did whas 100% in
 > >> MvdV> accordance with the rules applicable to me.
 >
 >  >> the rules of the echo are/were applicable to you...
 >
 >  MvdV> When the moderator disappeared, so did his rules.
 >
 > the moderator didn't disappear...

Yes he did.

 > it just looked like he did... you didn't follow up as thoroughly
 > as you should have...

That is your opinion. Opinions don't make facts.

 >  >> it is quite a simple system... FWIW: it was put in
 >  >> place to prevent abuses similar to the situation we
 >  >> are discussing...

 >  MvdV> And by that created another way of hijacking. As
 >  MvdV> happened with the ZCC_PUBLIC echo.

 > wrong... bobM didn't hijack the ZCC_PUBLIC echo... he tried
 > and failed... the most that happened was that there were
 > two echos of the same name...

BobM succeeded. The idea was that ZCC_PUBLIC should be a read only echo for all
but the ZCC members. Many Z1 particpants refused to honour that because the
echolist said different. And so it became a general chat echo. Thanks to the
echolist mafia.

 > which one survives today?

None, I'd say. The original purpose of the echo was lost when BobM grabbed the
listing. All that is left is another genral chat echo. The original echo was
killed by BobM and the elist mafia.

 >  MvdV> And then forced their way of doing unto others.

 > no... they've only stated that if you want to play their
 > game that you play by their rules... it is their
 > distribution system, is it not?

Sysops own their individual systems. Nobody owns the ditribution system.

 > >> lifetimes upwards of six months or more before they
 > >> expire... they are considered accurate until they qualify
 > >> for deletion...

 >  MvdV> Considered by whom?

 > the elist, of course...

The elist is not part of Fidonet. So who cares what they consider?


 >  MvdV> And the shopkeepers in Chicago were free to pay Al Capone and
 >  MvdV> enjoy the pleasure of not having their business demolished.

 > just as they were free to fight back and remove that tumor

Exactly what I was attempting when I contested the elist system.

 >  MvdV> That is why I call the bones the "echolist mafia".

 > but you haven't been doing that...

Haven't I? The funny thing is that everyone got so agrevated about the use of
the 'M' word, that nobody bothered to ask what I actually mant by it. Everybody
just ASSusemed I meant the echolist...

 > the backbones and the elist are seperate entities...

The operate hand in hand. The echolist would not be authoritive is the
backboens didn't use is as such. The backbones could not keep the stanglehold
on the moderators without the elist.

 >  MvdV> Simple does not make it right. Al Capone's "protection racket"
 >  MvdV> was also very simple: You pay and we won't smash your shop.

 > and preventing that was also simple... the only reason that
 > capone was able to do that was because people allowed him
 > to do it...

Yeah, right. Just as the only reason Saddam could terrorize his people is
because they allowed him to do....

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)