[ 08 Jan 03 03:23, Bill Birrell wrote to Scott Little ]

 BB>     Untrue. Policy 4 affects every sysop in FidoNet.

[snip]

 BB> Don't just bitch about it or pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm not bitching, you are.  And it doesn't apply here so it might as well
not exist as far as this project is concerned.

 BB>     This is the NET_DEV echo. If Net development is pointing in a
 BB> forbidden direction, surely this *IS* the place to say so.

You do realise that development generally means leaving people behind.  You
and Jan appear to suffer the same disease.

 BB>     That's the whole point. Anything that impacts the cost of
 BB> distribution of the nodelist does interfere negatively with all other
 BB> nodes. Doubling the size and therefore the cost of distribution of the
 BB> nodelist is a prime instance of 'annoying behaviour'. That is why
 BB> there must be an alternative.

We aren't doubling the nodelist.  We're making a new nodelist, if you want
to use it, do so, if not, get scrapped.

 >> How does that differ from the current list?
 BB>     Even you must be able to see that. Are you a ninny?

Ooh, name calling.  Can't you come up with a better arguement?  Come on,
answer the question: what new elements in XML need the government's
personal approval that new elements in SLF don't?


-- Scott Little  [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod{at}sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+