Text 26090, 228 rader
Skriven 2012-02-28 10:29:56 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Kommentar till text 26022 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Fidonews v29, n8 mes
============================
27 Feb 12 20:06, mark lewis wrote to Dale Shipp:
RW>>> I wouldn't believe your source for that, even if you paid me.
DS>> I wouldn't pay you for anything. My source for saying that Björn
DS>> did not get the messages is by looking at messages on his BBS.
RW>> And you've been apprised of that falicy, as in; "passes through"
RW>> his system, but doesn't appear on his BBS, as stated to you by the
RW>> falsely accused...
ml> @royW: how can bj passthru messages posted in this echo and still
ml> participate in it?
That's easy. One tosses what he wishes to passthrough and that which he
wishes to read. If you claim that you know FE, then you know how it can be
done.
i.e. I use FEs ability to toss inbound echomail to ROIZ and can browse it
without replying. The public is non the wiser. That feature can be used to
toss To: All messages into a "Lets-look-at-this-first" echo and re-toss it
out later by putting what you want to toss out to your outbound into the
appropriate echo.
DS>>> If you check that path line you will see that it is: 261/1406 ->
DS>>> 261/38 -> 320/119 -> 203/0.
RW>>> Which is irrelevant, as the only one who has complained about not
DS>> Pay attention -- it is the only thing relevant to what I have been
DS>> talking about.
RW>> That's because you don't know what you're talking about. You've
RW>> made false accusations and presented falsehoods on evidence that
RW>> doesn't support your position.
DS>> I have not been talking about Nick. Let me recap for you in simple
DS>> steps so that you might be able to understand them:
RW>> You have to include the facts, which you haven't used to support
RW>> your position! Instead you've taken everything out of context and
RW>> made up things which have been proven not to be true.
DS>> 1. messages were missed by some systems.
RW>> Two...
DS>> 2. Janis proposed a probable cause -- namely that some systems
DS>> trapped them as dupes because of having over zealous dupe detection
DS>> settings.
RW>> Which has been proven to be false by those who've stated that they
RW>> have seen them.
ml> @royW: this does not mean that those systems who are missing those
ml> messages may not have caught them as dupes...
Ok, then explain why, according to Janis, they were all sent to 140/1 and
why he only got the first page. Or that HNuet, 140/1's downlink, only
received the one page that 140/1 got. Does missing echomail from 140/1
ring a bell?
ml> at least one of my downlinks has fallen prey to this very thing...
Yeah, but is that downlink a member of the same distribution system as in;
top three major player. Also explain why, if the leading member of that
system is so reliable, one of the other major links has changed his source
for this echo to one of my downlinks!
ml> i got the messages...
So did I...
ml> my downlink doesn't have them on their system... they definitely left
ml> here going to that downlink... are you implying that someone is
ml> playing games with the seen-by control lines??
Perhaps...as you showed me yesterday, I don't recall the agreement between
my downlink to feed the NAB...Still waiting for that explanation from him.
Plus a routed through 140/1 netmail from a third party who inquired of my
health, which isn't anyones business but the party I discussed it with.
There's more going on behind the scene than playing with seen-by lines.
DS>> 3. Björn ridiculed her and claimed that it was all her fault.
RW>> Which, as it turns out, is a fact and not fiction.
ml> @royW: wrong...
Unfortunately, those who didn't get those messages can't disprove that,
because they never got them.
ml> i can easily duplicate the situation of multiple messages written in
ml> the same second with the exact same header info... i do not use her
ml> software at all...
I can do that too, that's not a problem, if one has the messages.
That's a major problem for those who don't have them. And if they get them
from you, that doesn't solve anything either.
DS>> 4. I confirmed that such settings exist (E.g. SQUISH has such a
DS>> setting if one does not comment it out).
RW>> Big deal...that doesn't do anything to negate the facts.
ml> @royW: sure it does... it explains why some systems lost the messages
ml> and others above them did not...
When a directly linked first downlink of the only system after they were
released by the original source didn't get them, what does that tell you?
They were't sent or 140/1's system lost them to his dupe detection?
AFAIK, the only complaint of not receiving all of the messages came from a
downlink of 140/1; who says that he only got the first page...
DS>> 5. I looked at Björn's BBS and saw that *HE* was in fact missing
DS>> those same messages -- ergo he, or one of his links, had killed
DS>> them.
RW>> Which was pointed out to you that they won't appear on his BBS,
RW>> since what goes to his system from Janis' is 'passed through' and
RW>> won't ever appear on his BBS. I would do the same thing if I were
RW>> in his position as Editor of Fidonews.
ml> @royW: and how to you suppose that he performs this feat of magic?
Björn has already explained that to you...
ml> i'm not aware of any mail tosser in fidonet that can perform this
ml> action as you describe it...
Now you do.
DS>> 6. His link for FIDONEWS confirmed that the messages left his BBS on
DS>> their way to Björn.
RW>> And Bjorn's downlinks have stated that they have seen them.
ml> but bj participates and doesn't get them while his downlinks do???
BJ received them and passed them through. He's not the complainent, nor
are any of his downlinks. I know how I would do that in FE. Being an
expert of that software, you should certainly know that too.
ml> there's no way... especially not when he responds to messages that he
ml> couldn't have gotten if he had set up a one-way feed...
DS>> Any other discussion you have been having with your hand another
DS>> matter.
RW>> You're ignoring the facts while blinding yourself with both hands,
RW>> again.
RW>>> Wrong, as Michiel, who is directly connected to Bjorn has stated
RW>>> that he's seen all of Nick's messages.
DS>> Michiel has various links to FIDONEWS. He has not yet said to my
DS>> knowledge where he got the messages.
ml> he has, actually, apparently refused to do so, too...
It's obvious where he got them. A downlink of RossC's sent them across the
pond to Björn, who sent them to Michiel.
Even Björn's other detractor has shown us that path.
RW>> He has confirmed that Nick's nodenumber was included in the path,
RW>> thus all 12 messages were passed to Bjorn's system onto his
RW>> downlinks.
DS>>> It was not Janis that did it -- it was Björn.
RW>>> Nope. Janis received Nick's messages and sent them through the NAB
RW>>> to Seaborn. Who has stated that after further review he hadn't
RW>>> received all 12 of them either.
DS>> Again -- another path from the one I was talking about. If Seaborn
DS>> did not receive them, he'd have to look in his logs or dupe message
DS>> area to find out why.
RW>> Seaborn is silent in that regard, as he is unwilling to support the
RW>> truth.
ml> i do not recall what message base format bobS uses over there or what
ml> mail tosser software... i seem to recall that it is gecho which means
ml> there are only 3 or 4 supported message base formats and a limited
ml> dupe detection database...
Well, that's more than I wantd to know about it.
RW>> Part of the Troika inner conspiracy, you know.
ml> fecal material...
What goes around eventually comes around...if you dabble in shit, you're
going to get some on you.
RW>>> And yet uplinks and downlinks either side of Bjorn have seen
RW>>> them...odd that you would consider a dupe check deleted them at his
RW>>> systme, yet those messages made it to his downlinks!
DS>> I conclude that Björn's system deleted them because they are not
DS>> present on his system and yet it has been confirmed that they were
DS>> sent to his system.
RW>> It has also been confirmed that they passed through Bjorn's system.
RW>> You're now stuck with the facts backed by all those involved, which
RW>> refutes your position entirely. Your conclusion is like an
RW>> ASSumption, making a bigger and bigger ass of yourself as you rail
RW>> on.
ml> it is a truly sad state of affairs all around :(
That's a fact...8^)
R\%/itt
... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)
|