Text 29291, 192 rader
Skriven 2012-05-30 06:16:13 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Kommentar till text 29275 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: That's a good thing Was: P4 violation noted
===================================================================
30 May 12 14:26, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:
MvdV>>> I am not looking for an "out". I am not "in". I am not bound by
MvdV>>> P4 as I never egreed to abide by it.
RW>> Then you should either agree to abide by it, or get out of the
RW>> network.
MvdV> It is not for you to tell me what I should do.
I'm not telling you what to do, I'm suggesting. You're free to dig your
own grave on this one. And so far you've done a great job of that.
RW>> As a non-compliant sysop, you're not welcome to stay in a network
RW>> that is held together by everyone agreeing to abide by that policy.
MvdV> "Everyone"? As in "not a single exception"? Hardly I think.
Everyone present...look around you and you'll see that no one has spoken
up for you ... except for Dossche, who has since gone silent in the face
of your (and his) opposition's opinions.
RW>> That is exactly what is stopping me. Everyone knows that I'm the
RW>> last guy to pull policy out of my pocket to make someone do what
RW>> they were supposed to do a long time ago.
MvdV> Yet, pulling policy out of your pocket to make me do what you want
MvdV> is precisely what you are doing now.
If I wanted to beat you over the head, I'd be the first one to file a PC
and remove you from the nodelist.
MvdV>>> You are smart enough to know it will go nowhere is what stops
MvdV>>> you.
RW>> I am confident that a policy complaint will go to the ZCC for a
RW>> final decision.
MvdV> The ZCC does not have the authority to overrule a ZC decision.
Wrong.
1.2.6 Zone Coordinator Council
___________ Snip! ____________O/___________________________________
O\
In particular, this council considers inter-zonal issues.
This includes, but is not limited to: working out the details of
nodelist production,
mediating inter-zonal disputes,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and such issues not addressed at a lower level of FidoNet.
====================================================================
Your non-compliance with P4 is an inter-zonal dispute. It becomes even
moreso when your ZC throws his hat in with yours.
MvdV> It can only overrule an IC decision. There is no IC, so no IC
MvdV> ruling, so nothing for the ZCC to overrule.
Wrong again.
MvdV> It will go nowhere. Zone crossing complaints are a dead end. Thank
MvdV> your ZC for that.
Actually, we can lay the blame where it belongs: on you and Dossche. This
goes back to your conspiracy with him to file a frivolous policy complaint
in an attempt to remove me from the nodelist. Not that I did anything to
deserve it, just that his is (it is ongoing to this day) a vengence for
booting (*) his sorry ass from the FN_SYSOP echo. Your mistake was in
believing that as IC, he could have the last word in the face of any
appeals or rulings made by me, my RC and ZC.
Seeing the light, the ZCC took it upon themselves to intervene and reverse
Dossche's ruling as IC, and being the horses ass that he is, he went off
the deep end and made even more mistakes, which you can see by reading his
'proclamations' in Fidonews; printed by your good friend - the Fidonews
Editor himself. All of his actions have lead to his demise as the IC.
So, the ZCC has set a precedent by taking it upon themselves to 'take
a look at' a situation that needs immediate attention for the good of
Fidonet.
And, this 'refusal' of your's to continue in the vein in which you have
chosen, they will have to take you seriously and curtail your Fidonet
activities until you can see the light.
* BTW, I also told my ZC to take a vacation from that same echo and rather
than excomm me for it, took her leave like a 'gentleperson'...that's how
fair she can be.
RW>> That you as an RC and your ZC had a chance to settle this before it
RW>> became an issue of contention will
MvdV> There is no issue.
Horse blinders get in your way or is it that stubborn streak running
down your back? That's kind of like the double back-streak that a skunk
wears...
RW>> BTW, your ZC as a party to the PC, will have to recuse himself from
RW>> the final vote
MvdV> In the hypothetical case of a ZCC ruling, a similar argument would
MvdV> apply to your ZC.
Not really. She may be aware that a PC has been filed, but her hands will
be tied unless she wishes to intervene on your behalf - before the PC
gets to the ZCC. I have no doubt that such a PC will rear it's head in the
ZCC private echo, knowing the stupidity of your ZC ... in fact, it could
already be a settled matter before the PC gets that far.
MvdV> She is the representative of the filer of the complaint and hence
MvdV> has a vested interest in the outcome.
She no more represents anyone else's actions than you do. A PC doesn't go
"through" a ZC unless he/she is a part of the complaint.
MvdV> Also she has already shown to be biased on the subject.
So you will know how she votes before the PC gets to the ZCC...no big
deal, as your ZC2 will also be a biased party when (or if) he rejects the
PC as your ZC.
RW>> leaving three ZCs to make the decision. I see at least
RW>> a 2:1 advantage against you by proceeding to the ZCC with a PC.
MvdV> The ZCC is a paper tiger.
This is not an arguement, unless you can figure a way around being
excommed by the people who write zone nodelists.
RW>> If you wish, we can dispense with the PC procedure
MvdV> It is not me who wishes to file a complaint. So nothing for me to
MvdV> dispense with.
Taking a sentence out of context only leaves you open to more ridicule for
not understanding English as it is written.
RW>> (wastes a lot of time) and just ask the ZCC to intervene here and
RW>> now.
MvdV> The ZCC has no authority to intervene.
At this point, no one else has that authority either. But that's not what
I suggested. Learn to read what is written and quit making assumptions
based in pure illogical misinterpretation.
MvdV>>> What "issue"? I have stated that am not bound by P4 as I never
MvdV>>> agreed to be be bound by it. There is no "issue to work out".
MvdV>>> It is not my problem that you don't like it.
RW>> Your arguement falls on deaf ears. You're bound by P4 for as long as
RW>> you continue to hold a node number. Give up the nodelisting or die
RW>> on the vine.
MvdV> What part of "no" is it that you do not understand?
I understand the word 'no' and its meaning quite well, thank you.
MvdV> Forget it Roy, this is going nowhere.
It usually does when you're on the losing end of a discussion.
MvdV> Don't bother to reply, you will just be repeating yourself.
Don't tell me what to do, you have no authority over me. Sound familiar?
MvdV> I have stated my position, I have nothing more to say on the
MvdV> subject, I will not respond to you anymore on the subject.
That's a good thing, I suppose. It leaves you open to yet more ridicule
without your ignorance entering into it. The subject is open to discussion
by anyone interested in it.
R\%/itt
... besides, IMNSHO, Ward Dossche should resign as ZC2 and surrender his
... net node-number to the ZCC ! - Cato the Elder -
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)
|