Text 31928, 53 rader
Skriven 2016-03-22 20:14:52 av Earl Croasmun (1:261/38.0)
  Kommentar till text 31926 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Note
============
>>> "Mr. Cassell requested a feed cut for Mr. Richardson.  Then
>>> Richardson sent me an email telling me pretty much to stick the
>>> bbs up my ass!"
>>> - Ed Koon to Björn Felten, Fidonews echo, 5/29/2015

>> Sounds like a pretty good reason for him to stop letting someone use his
>> computer.

> Show me the nasty email/netmail that Ed Koon claims that Tim sent
> him.

Only two people have seen it, as far as I know, and both confirm that it did
exist. Ed's account is above. Tim's account does not contradict it. He said he
did not "cuss" in it, but that he accused Ed of being bullied into cutting his
access. The two versions are consistent. The cut came after a simple request
from a sysop to a user: "Tim, please do not post in FidoNews." That was
followed by another 25 or so posts in the echo. Seems like pretty easy grounds
for cutting write access, even without the e-mail.

> When challenged, Ed Koon was not able to do so.

You "challenged" him? That's pretty funny. A hint: when people ignore you, that
doesn't necessarily mean that they are "unable" to respond to you. They might
just want to avoid petty, pointless irritations.

> When challenged, Ed Koon was unable to
> substantiate/support his claim.  In other words, ED KOON LIED!

An interesting definition: you think that when someone cannot substantiate a
claim, that makes the claim a "lie." Tim indicated a while back that he had
deleted or lost the e-mail, so HE cannot substantiate his version. I have no
problem with that. I am willing to accept Tim's account and Ed's account. But
by your definition, YOU should be saying that "Tim lied."

And when you say that Ed was "unable" to produce the message, you are obviously
incapable to substantiating that. He may not have seen your "challenge." He
might have laughed at it. He might have ignored it. Which means that, again by
YOUR definition, YOU lied.

>>> It should also be noted that Ed Koon
>>> does not have control of his own board (if he did, he could
>>> have told Ross to take a hike).

>> It should be noted that he DOES, and on various occasions he HAS.

> Ed Koon chose to suck Ross Cassell's dick.  His choice.

You said the same thing with regard to Wayne Chirnside's access. You were wrong
then too. A sysop made a polite request to a guest. The request was violated.
Write access to the echo was cut.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-2
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)