Hello Rick.

04 Nov 02 07:14, you wrote to me:

 RR> You are playing quite the fool you know. I guess you have never looked
 RR> at my nodelisting.

I know what your nodelisting is like. You are the fool for thinking that
Pvt doesn't cause any problems; and despite you flying the Pvt flag
yourself, you continue to promote the needs of POTS mailers over the needs
of IP mailers, which just further points out how backwards your thinking
is. By accepting a kludge that causes confusion and hinders IP
communications, you willingly participate in a situation that hinders
further development of IP based technologies, and causes the few who are
still actually /developing/ such software to become frustrated and
discouraged with the prospects for the future of this network.

EVERY node /must/ be treated equally! No dual meanings for flags based on
differing connection methods, no accomodations on one side's part without
any accomodation on the other side's part. IP nodes have been doing /all/
the accomodating for years now, without /any/ accomodation for the IP
node's needs on the part of POTS nodes. If IP nodes can put their system's
DNS name in the BBS name field as an accomodation for POTS nodes, when it'd
probably be so much easier to just put it in the phone number field, why is
it so *blamed* hard for POTS nodes to make a small accomodation by agreeing
that /any/ 000-* listing in the phone number field will indicate IP only
node, and thus agree that all POTS nodes will block it out???

It's time to recognize that cooperation is needed in the nodelist on /both/
sides. Any less is not fair to the members of this network; a class system
has /no/ place in the technical aspects of this hobby, and by "towing
the party line", you are promoting a class system in this network.
While you may be happy in your blissful ignorance of the harm your attitude
causes to this network, I /refuse/ to be a party to that.


--- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3