Text 6845, 179 rader
Skriven 2013-12-05 13:33:02 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 6827 av Henri Derksen (2:280/1208)
Ärende: Dispute from ZCC.
=========================
 Brer Henri Derksen wrote to Brer Roy Witt about Dispute from ZCC.:

 HD> Hello Roy,

 RC>> Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,I
 RC>> BN,INA:felt en.yi.org,U,NEC

 RC>> Can you tell me or show me from the above which is your nodelist
 RC>> segment where the names of those 87 registered users are?
 RC>> I do see _YOUR_ name!!

 HD>> Did you notice there is no MO (=Mail Only) flag in his line?

 RW>> Irrelevant.

 HD> It still is relevant.

Wrong.

 HD> But you did not motivate your p.o.v., I did.

There is no point in arguing with a wall...

 HD>> That means there is a BBS too!

 RW>> Not really.

 HD> Yes, almost ALLWAYS!

Never.

 HD> If there is no BBS, the node should be listed with an MO flag.
 HD> Or the system is not well configurated, or the nodelist entry is
 HD> wrong.

You're being obstinant, I guess for no good reason. Whatever, what you're
saying is irrelevant to the election, not to mention that you contradict
yourself. Nobody other than the nodelisted sysop is elegible to vote in
any Fidonet election.

 HD> No MO-Flag, there should be a BBS, and a mailer, both! period.
 HD> MO flag, than BBS-users have no access, only mailers.

Unless there is a BBS noted in the nodelist, there is no flag that
indicates that there is.

 RW>> The CM flag indicates that the node is in Continuous Mail mode.

 HD> You are confused.
 HD> That's CM flag is to indicate the node is 24 h online and always
 HD> accept mail, also outside ZMH.

LOL! It simply means that the node accepts mail 24hrs a day. I'd call that
continous if there ever was a continous.

 HD>  First there were BBSes, then they were
 HD> connected to exchange mail too. And later on many are Mail Only
 HD> withouth a BBS, hence the MO-flag. The CM flag does not indicate
 HD> there a BBS or not, i.e. irrelevant. The MO flag does wat it tells
 HD> you, Mail Only, so No BBS.

 HD>> A NodeNumber with a BBS means BBS-users with are adressed to as
 HD>> Point 0 (=Zero), ALL of them!

 RW>> Reading that listing doesn't imply that any BBS is present.
 RW>> It has a modem baud rate and a few modem flags,
 RW>> but nothing that says there is a BBS there.

 HD> Wrong, the lack of a MO-flag allways implies a BBS.

Wrong. A BBS is listed in the BBS field of a nodelisting. The operating
condition MO flag indicates that the node does NOT accept human callers.

 HD> The MO-flag was created to accept mailhovers to leave the BBS
 HD> function away, because their systems were so busy with mailmoving,
 HD> that there was no time to accept BBS-users. That was another reason
 HD> why at ZMH no BBSusers were alowed. The (not) use of the MO flag
 HD> implies that BBSusers want to know wich systems they can call with a
 HD> terminal program. And people still do that, at my BBS for instance. I
 HD> do not mention their names for privacy reasons.

 HD>> And of course there are many (un)registered BBS-users.

 RW>> Irrelevant.

 HD> If there is No MO-Flag, there must be a BBS, and mostly also
 HD> BBS-users.

You're now saying that without an MO flag there is no BBS when before you
claimed that the MO flag indicates that there is? You contradict yourself.

 HD> At least the SysOp, but often many more users. Note
 HD> writing via A BBS (In my case Remote Access) gives other mailflags,
 HD> than writing via a Mailer (In my case FD 2.02 NC).

Jaysus! Talk about using ancient software. You should be the apple of
Bjorn's eye...welcome to the 21st century.

 HD>> 2:203/2.0 could be any one of that BBS-users (SysOp included).

 RW>> Also irrelevant.

 HD> A SysOp can ask his CoSysop to write the messages that is asked for.

 HD>> So a NodeNumber alone does not specify a certain person,

 RW>> On the contrary. The nodelist was used as a reference for the
 RW>> elebibilty of candidates with their names and node number to prove
 RW>> it. No BBS users were included or allowed in the FTSC vote...

 HD> A SysOp is also a BBSUser, and he may write his mail via his BBS,
 HD> i.e. when he is not at home at an location with no internet, but only
 HD> phone. Than he can log in remotely to his own BBS and write the
 HD> message needed, so even a FTSC Vote. The message form his BBS is
 HD> different, from that one written via his mailer. May SysOp's have a
 HD> Point account for reading and writing on the move? Michiel van der
 HD> Vlist, Ward Dossche and Kees van Eeten have shown that, and many more
 HD> SysOp's still do.

 HD>> Here are many Point 0 (=Zero) BBSusers too. Note, they can also
 HD>> write and receive NetMail or EchoMail.

 RW>> Irrelevant, as users and points aren't elegible as a candidate to
 RW>> the FTSC.

 HD> Wrong, as I proved in this message earlier.
 HD> A NodeListed SysOp can alsow be his own BBSuser, and also a Point.
 HD> Are SysOp's not allowed to write from their BBS or their
 HD> Point-adress? Off course they are, even for voting.

 HD>> One votes only for or against a candidated human being (FidoNet
 HD>> participant) as a FTSC member, and not a nodelisted SysOp,

 RW>> Wrong. You should get Michiel to explain this to you in Dutch, since
 RW>> English  seems to go way over your head.

 HD> You know nothing about my knowledge of Englisch, you only think you
 HD> know. Note that it is not my native language, so may be I make a
 HD> little bit more mistakes, but a normal educated person will
 HD> understand what I write.

 HD>>  Point or (un-)registerd BBS-user by only a number, or a false name.

 RW>> Irrelevant.

 HD> No, the NodeNumber is NOT uniquely couppled to a SysOp only.
 HD> That is what I try to tell, but many not want to hear.
 HD> Every BBS-user has the same NodeNumber as that particular SysOp.

 RC>> Your claim is as lame as the character set translation thing.

 HD>> My Point Zero proof shows your RC18 p.o.v. is hereby not valid for a
 HD>> complaint.

 RW>> Neither is your non-compliant logic.

 HD> No, As I proofed my point in other words and with arguments in this
 HD> message too.

 HD> That only SysOp's may be a candidate is another (bad) thing.
 HD> Because there could be not nodelist very good technical talents for
 HD> the FTSC that do have no chanche now ;-( A former SysOp for instance,
 HD> or a very good Point software engineer.

 HD> Henri.

 HD> ---
 HD>  * Origin: Connectivity is the Future; UniCorn BBS 31 26 4425506
 HD> (2:280/1208)

         R\%/itt - K5RXT

 Reminder: "On Friday September 8th 2006, Mike Godwin's 16 year experiment
 was concluded and Godwin's Law was officially repealed by a MAJORITY vote
 among millions of individuals." http://repealgodwin.tripod.com/

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
--- D'Bridge 3.92
 * Origin: Lone-Star Hub - Gulf Coast Distribution - USA (1:387/22)