Text 29235, 80 rader
Skriven 2012-05-29 12:14:26 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 29231 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
>I am not interpreting policy when I say I am not bound by P4, because I did no
> agree to abide by it.

You accepted your nodenumber and still use it thereby accepting the basic
tenets of Policy 4 just like everyone else in Fidonet has.

>Yes, I can. I can ask others who DID agree to abide by it, to follow the rules
> that THEY agreed to. I do not have to agree to abide by those rules myself to
> do that and the fact that I actually did, proves it.

And the fact that you ask them to abide by those rules is further proof that
you also consider the rules of Fidonet's policy document to be something to be
adhered to.  Otherwise you wouldn't be asking others to abide by them.

>> Anyone can just refer back to the times you've _used_ policy 4 to
>> prove that right now you are probably lieing in stating that you don't
>> accept it.

> If you want to call me a liar, you had better come up with some solid proof
> that contrary to what I am saying, the procedure as outlined in P4 /was/
>followed when I applied for a node number. Or make yourself guilty of slander.

You can call me 'guilty' of anything you want, Michiel, but that doesn't make
it true - Certainly in this case where it's obvious you _do_ follow policy 4
and have since you accepted your nodenumber.  I think you should just relax and
enjoy Fidonet.

> Other than that: I think you will not be able to find any (ex) sysop - except
> maybe one - from the former net 500 that followed the P4 procedure to the
> letter. It is just not how things worked back then.

Fidonet as I'm mentioned to you has always had situations where Policy 4
couldn't be followed to the letter.. this is nothing new, or something that has
just come up.

As I also mentioned to you earlier, those who wrote policy saw that there would
be situations that might arise in the future that would need an exception to
some parts of Policy 4.  They built in some ways to take care of those
situations meanwhile not locking the organization to a literal word-by-word
hammer-headed implementation.

> Net 500 was founded by Henk Wevers, who certainly did not agree to follow P4
> when he got his node number, as that was before P4.

He's not here now, and his actions then and the organization then do not have
anything to do with the Fidonet of today, this discussion, or the Fidonet that
has existed since Policy 4 was written.

>Net 500 was run by the HCC. The Dutch Hobby Computer Club. In the beginning th
>hardware was owned by the club and the sysops were members who were /guardians
> appointed by the club. Later the net was opened up for so called "free nodes"
>who owned their own hardware, but club membership was a requirement for joinin
> net 500.

I understand.. in Net 272, when I joined Fidonet in 1989, the echomail system
of the NEC was owned by the network.  We had to pay in to use it, granted it
wasn't much $$ to do so via CRP, and of course everyone had their own system.

>The vast majority of new sysops came from the pool of active points.
> Those already had demonstrated the ability to send and receive netmail as a
> point, so they were normally accepted without further jumping through hoops.

Which is just as it should have been.  How is that different than your
situation?  I don't remember your mentioning having to 'jump through any hoops'
to gain your nodenumber.

> P4 was never accepted as valid in total in The Netherlands and it was never
> followed to the letter. Not in net 500 and not in the other nets.

Policy 4 is not followed to the letter by many. There isn't any problem with
that, or we'd all be forced to use Modems to communicate today.

> That's probably not what you want to hear, but that is the way it is.

It's exactly what I want to hear.

Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)