Text 5894, 218 rader
Skriven 2013-01-22 23:17:26 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.42)
Kommentar till text 5881 av Nicholas Boel (17081.fidonews)
Ärende: Z4
==========
ML> nick, damnit... stop it... you are being a fool.. even moreso if
ML> you are folowing what others are saying... surely you aren't
ML> another MRO are you? if folks in Z1 were dissatisfied with janis'
ML> actions as Z1C, they'd have already brought it up (where it
ML> belongs) and had her replaced just like has been done with other
ML> ZCs, RCs and NCs...
NB> Most folks in Z1 either aren't around, don't post in Fidonet,
how are they in Z1 if they do not participate in fidonet?
NB> or don't care to get involved with some of the ridiculous games
NB> that are played here.
then why are you stirring up the shit in the barrel after it has all settled
down??
NB>> The point is is that he cannot be contacted directly.
ML> YES he can! how many folks need to post their logs showing that
ML> they have successfully connected with the listed internet domain
ML> for his system(s)?? if there's a connection then netmail can be
ML> delivered... your horse is lame...
NB> And how many have posted their logs saying they couldn't? Just as
NB> many. So there's a 50% chance that you will connect to his system.
no... you can't count the percentage based on the number of people... out of
the 10 or so times i've randomly polled his system during all this crap in
here, i've connected with him 9 times... only one time was i unable to but i
attribute that to DNS problems which cleared up after a reboot of the
firewall... so there's a 90% connection rate from my end... maybe i just got
lucky and others haven't? based on this i should play the lottery?
NB> Speaking of which, there must be some warnings going out there,
NB> because I was finally able to connect to both his BBS and his
NB> mailer just now. Excellent! If that's what it takes, I guess
NB> that's what it takes.
since he apparently carries the full feed, he's probably reading all of this
anyway... i'm extremely surprised that he has the restraint that he does
because if i were him, i'd have blown this place all to hell with the
speculation and crap and really shoved some folks back in their places where
they belong... but that's me and not him...
ML> janis is only providing routing options... agreed that one
ML> shouldn't HAVE to route upwards thru the *C hierarchy but that's
ML> not a guarantee anyway... this is simple routing, man... good
ML> grief... see it for what it is and not what others are apparently
ML> telling you it is... furrfu...
NB> I have seen it for myself. I tried connecting to both his BBS and
NB> his mailer a few times now (not one after the other, but at random
NB> times)
hunh?? bbs and mailer? the nodelist only lists mailers... where'd you find info
on connecting to his bbs?
NB> and had no luck until just now. I don't care about the routing
NB> options. I'm agreeing with the people that are stating that the
NB> nodelist entries are wrong, and should be corrected.
while i tend to agree, i can easily see extenuating circumstances and have been
seeing their possibility contrary to others who insist on playing their "i'm
right" games... paul's theory should have been thought of before by those
stirring up all the shit but it didn't fit their agenda so they refused to look
in that direction... i've pointed out over and over and over how we, as a
network, are subject to the whims of the internet that so many have chosen to
use for their main transport mechanism... i've been shouted down about that,
too... until it came back and slapped them square in their faces...
ML> you are out of line... way out of line... i don't see you playing these
ML> games in othernets that you are a member of so why do you play them in
ML> here?? hell, you are one of those who fuss, at times, about the way
ML> fidonet operates but yet here you are pouring fuel onto the fire... stop
ML> being used as a pawn...
NB> Since you have such a great memory, you should realize who jumped
NB> into my conversation with someone else (defensively, I might add)
NB> and started slinging the insults regarding one piece of output on a
NB> traceroute. When the insults are slung my way, I don't put my tail
NB> between my legs. You should know that.
i don't recall any insults until the accusations got stupid and assinine,
nick...
NB> In othernets, there are no retarded arguments like there are here.
NB> Everyone seems to just get along with the same interests, no matter
NB> what country they reside in.
there's not?? LOL that's funny... you are obviously not reading MRO's stupid
shit in a gated echo... either that or you are not sure what "retarded
arguments" are...
NB> This is all on my own, Mark. Noone is using me as a pawn. Just
NB> because I agree with some of what they're saying, doesn't mean
NB> there's anything going on behind the scenes. The diversions are
NB> what are super annoying and unnecessary. Stick to the point, and if
NB> someone states something could/may be/is wrong, look into it
NB> instead of coming up with excuses. If looking into it proves
NB> everything is good, people can move on. If not, maybe there's
NB> something that can be done to fix the issue. If Manuel polls Janis
NB> and is totally contactable via her, why couldn't she just ask him
NB> about those nodelist entries, since noone else could? I don't see
NB> why we need excuses, and prolonging of an argument -- at all.
how do you know that she hasn't asked him? why should she go and tell everyone
if she has or what his reply is/was? and anyone else could... as stated before,
all they had to do was to either send the mail direct when they could connect
or route it to a distribution system that could determine where to send it so
that it could be delivered... but no... others have to poll and poll and poll
trying and trying and likely shooting themselves in their own two feet with all
their polling and polling and keeping their DNS caches loaded with the same
tired old data... depending on the DNS they are using, of course...
ML> if you were familiar with traceroute, you'd have recognized that line
ML> straight out without any need to question it... i and many other did...
ML> why didn't you???
NB> I don't use it on a regular basis? Either way, it didn't require an
NB> insult.
just as other items you've written didn't didn't require any insults but you
just keep on doing it where janis is concerned... you don't even know her 1/4th
as well as many of the rest of us yet you act like you grew up with her in her
neighborhood and you two have been deadly enemies because one of you stole the
other one's boyfriend/girlfriend or something...
NB> Just as well, all it was doing was diverting from the original
NB> subject,
you brought it up... you started that diversion... at least two or three or us
explained what that line was output from...
NB> which was completely NOT covered because of the need to argue
NB> about moot points. :(
then don't do that and stick to the topic as you say...
NB>> Just like it doesn't matter what you propose, or anyone else for
NB>> that matter these days.
ML> YOU made the proposal(s) about things... not janis... you are turning
ML> things around bassackwards, dude...
NB> Ok, Mr. Elephant (not an insult, only because elephants never
NB> forget). Show me the original proposals I made
that's not the proposals folks were looking at when the shit hit the fan just
now... your statement above "doesn't matter what you propose" was made to janis
but you were the one to make the proposals... not janis but your statement
reads the opposite...
NB> (which I hope you realize were about nodelist entries), and then
NB> show me the diverting of those proposals to reflect something else
NB> (ie: NOT nodelist entries, but contactability), done by Janis --
NB> including the first insult to be thrown.
you were also coming off as a total shit (again) which is why you landed in her
twit bin and also why i jumped the way i have... think about it...
NB>> You're still fishing for answers. No it is not my RC. Keep
NB>> guessing. :|
ML> she doesn't need to... she knows who contacts her and who is doing their
ML> RC jobs to her satisfaction...
NB> Another diversion.
it is NOT a diversion... if it is YOU brought it up...
NB> This is why you two get along so well.
no, we get along so well because we respect each other's talents, knowledge and
expertise...
NB> That has nothing to do with what we were discussion in regards to
NB> "her" RCs. :(
if the Z1RCs and the Z1C don't have any problems connecting with each other and
there's a problem with others connecting to them the someone needs to speak the
fuck up in the proper place and stop these idiotic beating around the fucking
bush games... speak up in the proper place with a decent attitude or shut up
about it... god damn, man...
ML> you don't have any proof of this, nick... none at all... your
ML> horse's leg is getting worse and worse and worse...
NB> LOL at the round robin.. This is where it always comes back to. The
NB> proof was blatently posted by Janis in regards to exact text in
NB> netmail between myself and Ward.
ahhh... i was wondering how long it would take for the other party to slip
out... now things are making a little more sense on that front...
NB> Whether she intercepted it, or got
NB> it forwarded to her by someone else, she's still the culprit that
NB> brought it public, which without either of our permission, is a
NB> violation of P4, isn't it?
no it is not a violation of policy... not if some sent it to her... how they
acquired it is another matter... if they intercepted it and then let it out,
then they may have violated policy... but in the case of netmail, anyway,
neither party needs permission to speak openly about something they wrote or
received in netmail... that's already been ruled on 25+ years ago and that
ruling has not been overturned...
NB> Anyway, I'm over it, and route everything around her now. So that
NB> definitely won't happen again.
whatever... if it had been so important in the beginning, you'd have sent it
direct to start with... obviously it wasn't that important yet you keep trying
to make a huge mountain out of it...
)\/(ark
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.42)
|