Text 21396, 119 rader
Skriven 2011-07-27 10:36:10 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 21317 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Vicious comments
========================
25 Jul 11 22:00, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV>>> The Fidonews editor is appointed by his/her predecessor.

 RW>> That isn't set in stone by policy.

 MvdV> Policy does not say evry much about Fidonews:

I know that. What sect 8 could do for Policy is to change that. And since
Policy doesn't have much more to say about Fidonews, except that it will
be distributed by all *Cs, there's not much to argue about in that sense.

 RW>>  It's merely a tradition

 MvdV> Nevertheless, that is what we'got. Policy  does not show us a way
 MvdV> yo change that.

For future reference: It could.

 MvdV>>> Nowhere in the chain of authority is and was there ever any say
 MvdV>>> from "the people".

 RW>> P4, sect 8.4 sets out how this situation can be changed.

 MvdV> Great. So go ahead and have P4 changed. I won't hold my breath.

I'll leave that to the ZCC.

 MvdV>>> Never in the 25+ year history of FidoNet was there a serious
 MvdV>>> attempt to change the system.

 RW>> Fidonews? A precedent was set when an editor died while holding the
 RW>> position and was replaced by the ZCC.

 MvdV> The present editor is noy dead yet.

Close.

 MvdV> And it was not the ZCC who appointed a successor, it was the ZC1.

The appointer was the IC, with Henk Wolsink before him.

 MvdV>>>  It was good enough when all the Fidonews editors came from Z1.

 RW>> We had good editors from Z3 and Z5.

 MvdV> Who were those? You don't mean that racist Henk Wolsink do you?

I never found anything racist in his postings, nor his Fidonews
publications. An even tempered man you'll never meet.

 RW>> But now this situation is no longer good enough because we have a
 RW>> rogue editor who publishes nothing and claims to also be the
 RW>> moderator, which he isn't qualified to be by his own demeanor.

 MvdV> Your opinion. It is irrelevant.

It reflects the general opinions of many others...together we're not
irrelevant.

 MvdV>>> If you wanted to change the system, you are 22 years late. You
 MvdV>>> should have acted before P4 was adopted. Now it is far too late
 MvdV>>> in the game.

 RW>> Policy4, sect 8.4 sets out an election procedure that can be used by
 RW>> the *Cs to take back the position and elect a new editor.

 MvdV> No, that section refers to a vote for a change of policy.

Precisely.

 MvdV>>> Calling for a change of the system now that YOU are on the
 MvdV>>> receiving end of having to swallow something you don't like is
 MvdV>>> hypocrite.

 RW>> I'd say the hypocrite claims to be the editor/moderator.

 MvdV> He does no claim to be the moderator, he *is* the moderator.

Perhaps in his and your eyes, but not by any others.

 MvdV> Appointed by his predecassor.

Soon to be disappointed.

 RW>> For us to swallow his vile crapola doesn't make anyone but him the
 RW>> hypocrite.

 MvdV> Your opinion. There is no doubt what option remains for an echomail
 MvdV> participant who disagrees with how the moderator does his job: vote
 MvdV> with the feet.

There is another option; vote him out.

 RW>> OTH, they're also free to oppose the editor and remove him from the
 RW>> chair.

 MvdV> No, they are not.

Don't bet on it.

 RW>> You guys could sever this so-called Z2 echo and block everyone else
 RW>> from the echo...may it live long and prosper in Sveden.

 MvdV> That may be an idea....

That would be a great idea, then this echo would have some peace for a
change.

 MvdV> It is for the moderator to decide though.

There is no moderator.

                R\%/itt

... English: The mongrel bitch they gave us is getting along quite well

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)