Text 20497, 156 rader
Skriven 2008-09-07 20:46:13 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
  Kommentar till text 20494 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Echotag Madness
=======================
Jeff Smith -> David Drummond wrote:

 DD>> Should the "rules" about RCs apply to those who are not RCs? Of course
 DD>> we have to decide what parts apply to us as individuals.

 JS>      Policy 4 applies to *C's as well as nodelisted sysop's.

Exactly which parts do nodelisted sysops need to "obey"? What would happen if
they didn't?

[...]
 DD>> Have I ever suggested that YOU should be obeying some rule that I
 DD>> decline to? That does seem to be something that some of you do
 DD>> however.

 JS>     No... You seem to think that everything will work ok without rules
 JS> or policies.

No, not EVERYTHING, just Fidonet.

[...]
 DD>> Policy was created because certain persons, not unlike yourself,
 DD>> cannot believe that life should be lived without draconian rules to
 DD>> kontrol everything we do.

 JS>     To dictate? No. To define a set of policies and procedures regarding
 JS> the operation and maintenance is something quite less "Draconian". You
 JS> are again exagerating the matter to help support your claim. Policy 4
 JS> is not a set of draconian laws that dictate how Fidonet should be run.
 JS> Policy 4 is a rather outdated set of policies that define what our
 JS> hobby is and ho it operates.

What parts of Policy MUST be obeyed in order for us to be able to communicate
via FTN?

 DD>> It also needed to list the technical requirements actually necessary
 DD>> for the various mailers to actually establish sessions.

 JS>     Which is in serious need of updating. Although the FTSC also needs
 JS> updating too to take in account the technology of today. I will not
 JS> hold my breath about either happening anytime soon.

No need to, we've managed to work it out for ourselves - as this conversation
proves. I am not obeying any rules, I simply downloaded and installed some
software and here we are, communicating. What possible rules would we need to
do something we seem to be doing already?
[...]
 JS>      "You" as in me as an individual or a member of a culture? Freedom
 JS> IS an important part of the American culture.

Yes I expect to see that when I visit American countries in November.

As for US culture, why is it that you have to have so many rules to obey? That
doesn't sound so free.

 JS>      As far as control is concerned. Control is simply a logical
 JS> requirement
 JS> for network such as Fidonet. What would Fidonet have ever amounted to if
 JS> there was never a set of policies or definitions to help make it's
 JS> operation
 JS> possible. You seem to see a potential conspiracy or control freak around
 JS> every corner.

What rules are necessary? We seem to be communicated quite adequately without
obeying any rules.

 DD>>  Or is it as you say, those rules only apply to the other
 DD>> guys?

 JS>     As I have always stressed David. Rules, laws, policies, Etc. should
 JS> be applied to everyone equally and as fairly as possible.

Why when no rules are necessary? What rules do we need in order to communicate
via FTN?
[...]

 DD>> It (Policy) already is optional.

 JS>      Yes, you have alredy stated that you look at P4 as optional.

And yet I manage to communicate via FTN.
[...]

 DD>> Fidonet is a "network of mailers". The only policies required are the
 DD>> technical ones explaining how to connect our mailers together and
 DD>> transact messages.

 JS>     Wrong David. Fidonet is a group of SysOp's defined by a nodelist that
 JS> use mailers to transfer mail. Policy applies to more than simply the
 JS> technical transfer of mail.

In what way? What else is needed in order for us to communicate?

 JS>     Got to remember David. This isn't the world according to Drummond.

My world is certainly not the world according to Smith. I manage to communicate
via FTN without any need of draconian, "must obey" rules. Seems my way is
certainly working for me.

 DD>> The social rules have been added by kontrol freaks who just cannot
 DD>> abide other people having any freedom at all. [...]

 JS>     The "Social rules" are needed because Fidonet is a group of people
 JS> and not just a group of mailers. Did you as a person join Fidonet or
 JS> did your mailer?

My mailer is part of the network. I just happen to be the person who installed
it. I have also installed an SNMP mail engine, and a Web server package. I
don't have to obey any draconian social rules to have them present and
operating on the Internet. All I had to do was have the packages conform to
certain technical specs.
[...]

 JS>     Wrong again. My system is capable of connecting with most (I imagine)
 JS> nodelisted systems in Fidonet. Policy and the nodelist specify both the
 JS> technical and social rules to make that connection possible.

You need no social rules for you mailer to connect to others, you just have to
have it conform to certain technical specs.

Of course, you mailer cannot connect to all of the other nodelisted mailers -
there is no one minimum connection method practised by all any more and I doubt
that your system is running the full variety of methods that would be required.


 DD>> Many of your 4600 nodes are ghosts - retained in the nodelist because
 DD>> it gives some kontrol freak a feeling of power.

 JS>     Get a grip David. Didn't you know that a prerequisite of being in
 JS> Fidonet was to be a power hungry control freak?

No - that's only necessary if one wants to be a *C in Z1.
[...]
 JS>      That may be true in your view of the world. The internet is a
 JS> medium for the transfer of data just as POTS was years ago. Fidonet is
 JS> a group of people who use the internet or POTS to transfer data.

Nope - Fidonet is the technology not the people. Once it is installed correctly
the people are no longer necessary.


While this has been a lovely conversation, it isn't going anywhere so I'll
leave you to obey all the rules you want to, and I'll ignore all the ones I
want to.

After all isn't that what freedom is about, and we all know how important
freedom is.

-- 

regards

David

---
 * Origin: -27 28'15.48"  +153 1'38.77" (3:640/305)