> >    To state that you follow the rules of EP1 is at best a half-truth,
 > >    and is also a partial lie.

 >  MVDV> Are you calling me a liar?

 >   When you speak something you know not to be true, that is a lie.  If
 >   the shoe fits, wear it.

So now you profess to be able to read my mind? How do you know what I know
to be true or not?

 >  MVDV> Then please state exactly were I have failed to follow EP1.
 >  MVDV> If you can't I expect you to make a retraction of your
 >  MVDV> sattement.

 >   As you have been told before, start with the fact that
 > EP1 mandates the existence of ZEC, REC, and NEC and a National
 > Echomail List.

In your interpretation of EP1....

 > I don't know if you have a REC or NEC but it seems to me
 > that you have more than once denied need for a ZEC or a
 > system wide Elist.

So? That I follow EP1, does not mean that I have to agree with every clause
in it and that I can not say so.

 >  Making that statement disavows EP1.

No, it does not. As long as I follow it anyway. And I do.

 >   In the sections on duties of those *ECs (III.1 and
 > following) it is stated that they must make available
 > (read distribute)

The "read distribute" is your interprretation.

 > echos which others are authorized to carry.

So?

How does that make /me/ violate EP1.

 > Will you affirm that is what happens in your area.

I will confirm nor deny. It is irrelevant to the matter at hand. I said /I/
follow EP1. I did not speak for my region or zone. I have been accused of
doing that too often. So I spoke for myself. /I/ follow EP1. And you
accused my of lying. I moderate a couple of echos but I am not a *EC nor am
I responsible for appointing *EC's or echolist keepers.

 > You certainly know that it is not true in much of the
 > rest of the world where *ECs don't exist and/or don't
 > have anything to do with the distribution of echos.

So?

 >   Section IV.1 to IV.5 is equally full of fiction and has
 > no bearing to the existing procedures.  Section IV.6 is
 > equally absurd since a *EC has nothing to do with recognizing
 > echomail conferences.

That it is absurd is your opinion, not fact.

 >   You and many others certainly did not follow the provisions
 > of section IV.7 when you stole the FN_SYSOP from the duly
 > elected moderator (Roy Witt).

So? where does it say that /I/ must follow that procedure. Especially if it
concerns a moderator that does not recognise EP1.

We simple asked the moderator to leave and he went...

I fail to see how /I/ acted in violation of EP1. there is nothing is EP1
that stops me from asking a moderator to leave.

 > Your actions were not based on the provisions in that section,
 >   but were based on your distaste for him as a person.

My decision to aks him to step down was based on my judgement that he had
overstepped his mandate.

 > Your actions did not follow the procedures in that section,
 > but went against allaccepted procedures and rules in existence.
 > Those actions by you,

What action did /I/ take, other than asking him to step down?

 >   in concert with others, disavowed EP1.

Asking a moderator to step down does not disavow EP1.

 >   So, tell me again that you follow all the principles put
 > down in EP1.

I follow EP1 as far as it applies to me as a sysop and a moderator.

 >   I don't think so.

Then you think wrong.

I await your apology for calling ,e a liar.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 229kx