Text 28860, 124 rader
Skriven 2012-05-22 19:00:37 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 28766 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
Hello Roy,

 Roy>> As sysops comprising the NAB (140/1, 261/38 and 123/500 - a
 Roy>> non-Fidonet sanctioned body/entity), they are under no obligation
 Roy>> to distribute anything they don't agree to distribute as grunt
 Roy>> sysops, per policy.

In other words, P4 doesn't matter, making it just a "goddamn piece
of paper" (as George W. Bush is alleged to have said about the U.S.
Constitution).

[..]

RW>One cannot be too careful. OTH, watch out for the back-hand swing
RW>of the Dossche.

Or the Witt.  :)

 Roy>> Basically, 'since echomail is not covered by Fidonet policy, the
 Roy>> distribution systems are acting on their own as individual sysops.'

 RW>> Were I having to judge though I'd say that the distribution
 RW>> of the echo was one thing, the distribution of the publication
 RW>> another.  When you take your backbone star hat off and put your *c
 RW>> hat on that puts a different spin on things when it comes to the
 RW>> FIdonews publication as a stand alone thing.

 Roy>> Neither of which makes it mandatory to distribute any files, not
 Roy>> agreed to distribute via an echomail or filegate backbone.

 RW>> MIght be, depends on how you interpret it.  I can see the
 RW>> merit in both sides of that argument.  Policy, and rulings
 RW>> by international coordinators in the past speak with forked
 RW>> tongue on the issue.

RW>We're all familiar with that.

Only a certain "conspiracy of thieves".

 RW>> Either Fidonet fully encompasses the distribution systems that
 RW>> utilize it, and therefore can make rules governing their activity, or
 RW>> it doesn't and can't.

RW>Since the present ZC1 and Satti's 20yo (read never recinded) policy
RW>interpretation calls for a seperate policy that is merged with the
RW>present or modified version of P4 (1989 version), calling an Echomail
RW>Policy to be consistent with policy, there is no reason to believe
RW>that Fidonet and Echomail distributors are under any obligation to
RW>run their system via Fidonet policy while wearing their distribution'
RW>hat. i.e. if they don't want to distribute 'fidonews' either the echo
RW>or the publication, they're not required to do so.

In other words, in the world of Roy Witt and his ilk, P4 is just a
"goddamn piece of paper".

 RW>> When wearing your distribution system hat, you're under no
 RW>> obligation to distribute that which you don't wish to distribute.

 Roy>> Changing hats to your *C position means that you are only obligated
 Roy>> to provide those files mandated by policy, but you're not obligated
 Roy>> to distinguish between Fidonews publications - EXCEPT that which is
 Roy>> covered by policy, aka 1:1/1.

 Roy>> Had Felten the forsight at the beginning of his tenure, he would
 Roy>> have grabbed that nodelisting to ensure that his publication is THE
 Roy>> official Fidonews that must be distributed.

 RW>> That makes sense too.

 RW>> But then we can all sit here in echomail and p4 lawyer this
 RW>> thing to death.  This is, at this point a matter for the zcc to
 RW>> decide. SO, to each one of them, "your mission, Mister Phelps,
 RW>> should you choose to accept it ... "  "this tape will self destruct
 RW>> in 30 seconds."

 Roy>> I suspect that the ZCC will follow policy on that one.

 RW>> I suspect that the zcc will do just what it has done, and
 RW>> let the p4 lawyers continue to beat each other up in
 RW>> echomail and watch the excrement fly.

RW>They should pay close attention to what is said. Someday they may
RW>actually have to make a decision on it.

Why should Björn Felten (or anybody else) "pay close attention" to
anything that is said or written in regards to Fidonet policy or the
"P4 lawyers"?  After all, it is *your* claim (along with the Ice Queen
and her cohorts) that P4 (and all other Fidonet policy documents) are
"just a goddamn piece of paper".

 RW>> After all that's got to be more entertaining <g>.  After all, two of
 RW>> them are partisans when it comes to this whole mess, and the other
 RW>> three obviously could care less.

RW>Could be.

That depends how much one likes Swedish humor.

 RW>> Whatever, I'll cherry pick good content if it's there from either and
 RW>> do the same myself.  An interesting debate on many levels,  but
 RW>> that's about the level at which I participate in this whole
 RW>> controversy, as an exercise in mental gymnastics.  I'm just as glad
 RW>> I'm not one of the other zc's because somebody might actually expect
 RW>> me to help deal with all the noise.

RW>Well, at least what you would have to say about it would be up for
RW>grabs by one side or the other.

Cherry picking is another way of taking something out of context
to make something other than what it is.  It takes absolutely zero
"mental gymnastics" to cherry pick items to present.  But such is
the level of rank amateurs...

 RW>> IT's a lot easier to just plink at targets from out here in the
 RW>> boonies and laugh ya know <grin>.

RW>Entertainment at its best.

Monkey see monkey do.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)