Text 5183, 87 rader
Skriven 2012-12-19 02:53:01 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
     Kommentar till en text av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Re: Suggestion
======================
RW> That's not my fault, it falls on your shoulders. But, there is the
RW> fallacy
RW> of your statement. At one time there were 6 zones, when a consensus was
RW> that echomail is not covered by P4 and a vote would have required the two
RW> zones that you campaigned to have removed, even when it was shown to you
RW> that there is/was life there. Just because they don't respond to the
RW> likes of you doesn't mean that they don't/didn't exist.
 
Zone-5's removal was requested by its own ZC after he emtied the segment of
anything else. A semblance of 1 (=one) node remained in Zimbabwe which was
PSTN-only, refused IP and upon Russell Tiedt's imminent retirement refused to
take the responsibility to continue the zone ... with only 1 node.
 
Zone-6's removal was equally due to an apparent lack of interest by the less
than a handful leftover participants. When the last generic Z6-ZC abdicated and
no-one else was available Carol rose to the challenge and she will confirm that
the zone sank away from under her feet. The last remaining nodes (2? 3? 4?)
were not part of a functional network, but just sat there. They were allocated
to Z3 which provided a refuge for them and they were never heard from again.
 
RW>WD>  And that 4th-one is very unresponsive.
 
RW> In your dreams.  You've been shown the errors of your ways and yet you
RW> continue to harp on a subject that seems to be way over your head. You're
RW> the only one who hasn't figured out how to read a nodelisting and
RW> implement your software to comply with the flags within it.
 
It is impossible to call into Z4 in a structured way using the listed
information in the nodelist. I am now calling several Z4-systems every minute
which carry the ICM-flag without success except for the Z4C-system which
sometimes responds but most of the time is off-line ... we call that a
"pointino".
 
One of those nodes I have now been calling every minute for 2 weeks or more ...
 
The only connects with Z4 are possible when they call out the way a point does
or you happen to be lucky Z4C is just online then.
 
Unless someone provides me the proof of the contrary I'd say zone-4 has stopped
functioning as a networked entity.
 
Fidonet these days consists of 3 zones: 1, 2 and 3. "The rest is silence"
 
RW> Echomail is not covered by policy 4.07.
 
Seeing your continuous abuse, unhindered by any Z1-*C expressing concern, it is
obvious you've never read P4:
 
*****************************************************************************
9.9  Echomail
 
Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet.  For the purposes of
Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is
therefore covered by Policy.
*****************************************************************************
 
RW> You're too stupid to live; may I suggest you visit .NU and take
RW> advantage of their suicide program.
 
My oh my ... running out of civilised vocabulary again ...
 
RW>WD> The only thing Z2 would need to do is develop and vote upon its own
RW>WD> zonal echomail-policy. If that succeeds, by virtue of its size, such
RW>WD> a zonal policy becomes the de-facto echomail policy nomatter how many
RW>WD> times you'll say that I'm full of shit. What 90% of the net says,
RW>WD> goes.
 
RW> That wouldn't make it fly anymore than your saying that your nodelist
RW> is NOT stuffed to the tune of 9:19. But if you insist on splitting
RW> Fidonet even further than you already have, be my guest.
 
It's difficult to swallow that your 8% is not a majority, isn't it?
 
An RC for every 0.8% of the nodelist, it really must be difficult to handle
that.
 
RW> I suggest that you resign ASAP and let zone two be free from the
RW> dictatorship that you've strived to force onto the rest of the network.
 
Double painful when Z2-nodes here attest how wrong some of such claims are...
 
Take care,
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.82
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)