Text 29304, 105 rader
Skriven 2012-05-30 22:15:48 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 29295 av Michiel Van Der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
>>> What you miss here is that "signing up" must be taken literally. The
>>> standard procedure is that one fills in a form, signs it with ink
>>> and sends the form by snail mail. Only THEN does it make a legally
>>> binding contract.

>> What YOU miss here is that Fidonet does not accept written legal
>> contracts :)

> So, whatever was agreed is not legally binding.

Perhaps in a court of law but we're NOT talking about a court of law here
Michiel.  We're talking about what is considered "implicit" in Fidonet as far
as policy 4 goes.  No one cares to consider what anything FIDONET means in a
friggin' court of law :) :)  It doesn't signify.

>>> THERE IS NO IMPLICIT AGREEMENT.

>> By the language used in Policy 4, written in the English language,
>> which is the formal language of Fidonet, there certainly is.

>Maybe in the legal system of the USA. Certainly not in the legal system of The
> Netherlands. Local laws override  Fdionet policy.

We're not talking about anything in any LEGAL court system.

You joined this network knowing what you were getting into.

You accepted the additional hats of FTSC Chair, and RC knowing well what you
were already involved in.  You accepted the implicit requirements of those
additional hats when you took those jobs.

No one blindfolded you and make you put up a mailer, made you take the RC
position,  or run the FTSC Elections.

>> Fidonet use a somewhat similar agreement that many Dutch web sites
>> use.. 'If you don't agree with the stated ToS, discontinue use of the
>> Web site'. No ink signature is used for goodness sake.

>comes to shove, such as when I opened an account with the Dutch provider where
>ftsc.org is registered, an ink signature was submitted by me to make it legall
> binding.

What you are describing is a legal agreement between you and an ISP where
somewhere $$ changed hands (someone else may be paying for the domain name, but
it is costing someone).  This isn't what's being discussed here.

We are talking about the fact that Fidonet policy 4 is written in English, you
knew that when you agreed to JOIN, and now, you are a member of Fidonet, and
since joining have increased your responsibilities as defined in that document
thereby accepting that your position of R28C is well defined in Policy 4, and
that you acknowledge and accept that.

>>> There is another reason why P4 can never be binding for Dutch
>>> citizens, even i it were signed in ink.

>>> A contract involving a private citizen - so not a company - MUST be
>>> in Dutch. contract with a customer in English is null and void here.

>> You agreed to use English when you accepted your nodenumber.

> No, I did not. As I mentioned before, the matter was arranged over the
> telephone. The conversation was conducted in Dutch of course. P4 was never
>mentioned.

Doesn't matter.  Since that day, you've read policy 4 so much so that you have
quoted 'line and verse'... and so much so that you have taken on additional
hats, those hats having been defined defined in Policy 4.

> Sidenote: Had I actuallly agreed to use English, it would have been
>meaningless. Dutch law requires the use of Dutch for legally binding agreement
> with individuals. An agreement to use a different language can not override
> that. Even more: it makes any such agreement null and void.

We're not in Judge Judy's Court Lol.. we're in Fidonet, remember?

>>> I did not "sign up".

>> You accepted your node number,

> Yes. I entered it into my configuration and the NC entered it into the
> nodelist. That was it.

There you go again.. implicit "acceptance".  You entered it in your config.

If you didn't want to implicitly accept that node number and what it involved,
you wouldn't have added it to your config.

Granted, as policy says, there's a window for new nodes in which they learn the
ins and outs of Fidonet.. but I'd say by the time you took on your other hats
(and I'd bet it was well before that even), you knew even more of what you'd
agreed to all those years ago.

> Forget it Janis, this is going nowhere. I have stated my position and I have
> nothing to add. Add a comment if you want, I will not respond to it any more.
> EOT

That's one way out, Michiel.

The other way is to realize that Policy 4 does not require all that horrible of
a number of things from you.

Janis

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