Text 10288, 61 rader
Skriven 2010-09-08 13:03:12 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 10273 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: PVT Nodes
=================
Hello Michiel,

> Or maybe you did not provide a phone number at all.

Private nodes are requested to give their phone numbers to their NCs, so THAT
is not the case.

>> You are making assumptions that are not true.

> I am merely attempting to enumerate the possibilities.

Baloney, you are trying to push Dale into something which is none of your
business.

>> I say again, I never requested a private node.  It was given to me
>> without requesting it. That is all I have to say about the matter.

>I can not shake the impression that your are withholding relevant information.

>> It is really none of your business.

> I disagree. I have said it before and I will say it again. We all use the
> nodelist, what is in it affects us all.

Sorry Michiel. I'm aware of why Dale has a private node, and I tell you it
neither affects you in the nodelist, nor anyone else, nor is it ANY of your
business.  If you need to contact Dale you are certainly doing it here in the
echo, or you can easily route a netmail to him.  The only person who needs to
reach him is his NC, period.  The word Private essentially means in the English
(American) language "none of your darn business).

> Now, if you were to say there is nothing I can DO about it, then I could not
>but fully agree. I can not force you to admit that giving you a private listin
> was in violation of policy, let alone that I can have it corrected. The zones
>are de facto autonomous. There is no interzonal court of appeal with the power
> to enforce a ruling. It has been demonstrated over and over again that in
> FidoNet there is no authority above the ZC's.

Sure there is.  The ZCC has come together to make decisions in the past.

> So... if the powers that be in Z1 decide - which they appear to have done -
> that they will ignore that part of policy that says private nodes should be
> implemented as points when possible and that they will ignore the part saying
>that otherwise justification must be provided, there is nothing I can do about
> it.

There is justification, and it must be killing you to not know the reason.
Again, none of your business.

>And if they rule that doing so is not a violation of policy, there is nothing
> can do about that either.

That's true.  It's like forcing a node to have a direct connection to fidonet..
NOT necessary.. if routed mail can reach a node, that's fine.  This time, read
policy 4 without your blinders on :)

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)