Text 26042, 187 rader
Skriven 2009-01-13 18:19:44 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
  Kommentar till text 26002 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: Tit For Tat
===================
Hello Lee.

12 Jan 09 19:13, you wrote to me:

 LL> Hello Jeff,

 >> RC>Except that this echo, had its listing lapse, Jack Yates
 >> RC>listed, passed it over to Shannon Talley, then Shannon
 >> RC>passed it onto me.

 JS>> Maybe you should preface your statement with something
 JS>> like "While I can only speak for myself"?

 LL> Ross made a comment, totally unsupported and unsubstantiated.
 LL> I called him on it.  You don't like it, and are having a hissy.

    Wrong Lee. Once again you can't see past your own perception
of things. You decided he was wrong. Does that make him wrong?
Not hardly. The real question might be since you have already
decided what the reality is what possibly could be said to change
it?

 JS>> While I am sure there are some that will agree. Your
 JS>> translation is simply that. YOUR translation.

 LL> And easily understood by everyone.

   Understood or agreed with?

 >> LL>Translation - Jack Yates allowed the elisting to lapse, Shannon
 >> LL>Talley hijacked the echotag, then Shannon Talley handed the
 >> echotag
 >> LL>over to Ross Cassell.

 JS>> If Jack passed the password over to Shannon.

 LL> There is no "if" about anything.  But let's suppose, for the sake
 LL> of argument, that Jack did pass the password over to Shannon.  What
 LL> does it matter?  It is still irrelevant, given that Thom LaCosta's
 LL> private elisting has no official status in fido.

    It looks to matter enough to you to suggest that Shannon "hijacked"
the echo. If it is so irrrevelant then why are you so worked up about
it? Let me ask you the same question if it is so irrevelant and Thom's
elist is so non-official. Then why are you having such a cow?

 JS>> How did Shannon hijack it?

 LL> By relisting it after Jack allowed the elisting to lapse.  That
 LL> is not a criminal act, or anything close.

     Then why are you acting as if it were?

 LL>  Some folks leave fido without bothering to pass the password to
 LL> anybody else.  As a result, the elisting lapses and somebody else
 LL> relists the echo.

     Absolutely true. I "Rescued" an echo that had expired some time ago.
I had no intention of keeping the echo and promptly returned the echo
to the previous lister. Some say I hijacked the echo. They were wrong.

 LL> Some folks make it into some sort of game, trying to see how
 LL> many echotags they can collect.  I think Bobby Queen holds the
 LL> record, but I could be wrong.  Maybe Bob Hoffman topped him.
 LL> Or Allen Prunty.

     Differant strokes I guess. I'm content with the handfull that I
manage. I frankly don't see the point of aquiring countless echotags.
If one is truely interested in the echos their subjects then that is
a differant matter. But to collect echotags aimlessly...

 >> LL>After all, Jack Yates made no public announcement that he had passed
 >> LL>the elisting to Shannon Talley.  Nor has there been any mention by
 >> LL>Shannon Talley of any private message having been received from
 >> LL>Jack Yates to that effect.

 JS>> And this is particularly unusual?

 LL> There is nothing unusual about an individual losing interest
 LL> in fido.  Happens all the time.  Jack left, having other, better
 LL> and more important things to do.

    There is also nothing unusual about people taking care of business
without announcing it to the world or asking it's approval.

 >> LL>Thom LaCosta's private elisting is not recognized as having any
 >> LL>official status in fido.  Nor is any other elisting (private or
 >> LL>otherwise) recognized as having any official status in fido.
 >> LL>As such, the collection of echotags is just that.  A collection
 >> LL>of echotags.

 JS>> And your point is?

 LL> Thom LaCosta's private elisting is meaningless.

    Not to those that use it.

 JS>> An elist doesn't have to be "Official" to be used now does it?

 LL> No elisting, including Thom LaCosta's private elisting, has any
 LL> official status in fido.  Elistings are inaccurate, can easily be
 LL> misused, and are.

     Read my lips Lee. An elist does not need to be "Official" to be
used. Policy is "Official" and only a percentage recognise it. Echopol
is recognised by some and not by others. People use what works for them
regardless of whether you agree or not.


 JS>> As with most things in Fidonet. Some use the elist
 JS>> and others don't. Again no big suprize. So... Again, whats your
 JS>> point?

 LL> All elistings, as well as Thom LaCosta's private elisting, are
 LL> totally meaningless.  No elisting is totally accurate, and some
 LL> may be extremely inaccurate.  Elistings are also easy targets
 LL> for abuse and misuse.  Which is one of the reasons why no
 LL> elisting, regardless of how well-intentioned an elisting might
 LL> be, should have any official status in fido.

    Then by all means don't use them. Guess what Lee? Those that
recognise them as usefull will continue to use them.

 >> LL>I am not sure as to who has the most echotags as of this writing.
 >> LL>It might be Allen Prunty.  It might be Ross Cassell.  It might be
 >> LL>Thom Lacosta himself.  It might be somebody else.  But regardless
 >> LL>of who is the echotag king, Bjorn Felten remains the one and only
 >> LL>editor/moderator of the fidonews echo, as listed and posted by
 >> LL>Bjorn Felten himself, in the rules for the fidonews echo.

 JS>> <chuckle> Per an agreement between Bjorn and Cassell they both
 JS>> moderate this echo.

 LL> And just as meaningless as Thom LaCosta's private elisting, being
 LL> that such "agreements" or "secret deals" have no part in fido.

    To you maybe. People simply go with what works.

 >> RC>Except for a few Chicken Littles on both sides of the big
 >> RC>pond, the arrangement Bjorn and I have works as well as can
 >> RC>be expected.

 >> LL>Same-sex arrangements/marriages are like that.

 JS>> Your starting to worry me there Lee.

 LL> Same-sex arrangements/marriages are just as meaningless as
 LL> Thom LaCosta's private elisting.

 >> LL>However, like Thom LaCosta's private elist, same-sex
 >> LL>arrangements/marriages are not recognized as having any
 >> LL>official status in fido.

 JS>> Why would Fidonet care about same sex anything?

 LL> You do realize what FIDO stands for?  Freaks, Irregulars, Defects,
 LL> Oddities.  As such, Fidonet should care very much.  After all, it's
 LL> their baby.

    Me thinks you should feel RIGHT at home then.

 JS>> Hmmm... If one of them was female would you feel better about it?
 JS>> <g>

 LL> Oops.  I left myself open for that one...

   <g>

 JS>> Alright, which one is more likely for a sex-change operation?

 LL> That depends if Dr. Frank 'N' Furter can be found.  :)

    Ummm.. I'll let you check into that. <g>

 LL> --Lee


 LL>  * SLMR 2.1a * This old dumb piano player just can't figure it out.

 LL> --- Maximus 3.01
 LL>  * Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.thebbs.org
 LL> (3:800/432)

Jeff

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: Twin_Cities_Metronet - region14.us (1:14/5)