Text 29224, 65 rader
Skriven 2012-05-29 10:21:04 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: P4 violation noted                  was: Janis defintions...
====================================================================
Hello Roy,

On Monday May 28 2012 05:58, you wrote to me:

 RW> You've admitted to not agreeing to abide by P4, in public...

I have stated that the procedure as outlined for applying for a node number was
not followed in my case.

The only occasion when policy requires one to agree to abide by it is when
applying for a node number. That was fifteen years ago.

 RW> "or technical evidence. Complaints may not be filed more than 120 days
 RW>  after the incident unless they involve explicitly illegal behavior."
 RW>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The "incident" was my application for a node number. That incident was closed
the Friday my number apeared in the nodelist.

 RW> All I know is that you're squirming about, looking for an out after
 RW> you've admitted to violating P4 in public. By your own admission to
 RW> that violation, you have no out here.

I am not looking for an "out". I am not "in". I am not bound by P4 as I never
egreed to abide by it.

 RW> Your only saving grace is my stand on the use of policy to beat
 RW> someone into submission.

It llook like that is what you are trying very hard: to beat me into
submission.

 RW> Unlike yourself, I won't use a  policy complaint against anyone, even
 RW> when they're so blatantly stupid as to admit violating P4 in public.

That is not what is stopping you. You are smart enough to know it will go
nowhere is what stops you.

 MvdV>>  So forget it, it won't fly.

 RW> I'm not going to forget it as long as you insist that you didn't or do
 RW> not intend to retract your statement that you didn't agree to abide by
 RW> P4 when you got your nodelisting.

Not going to happen.

 RW> IMO, by accepting a nodenumber, you agreed to abide by policy.

Your opinion is noted.

 MvdV>> Be my guest.

 RW> In my opinion, and I can't help to think what others may think about
 RW> it, this one statement counts as a refusal to work out the issue and
 RW> the PC may follow within the P4 alloted time-slot to file it.

What "issue"? I have stated that am not bound by P4 as I never agreed to be be
bound by it. There is no "issue to work out". It is not my problem that you
don't like it.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)