RC> Hello Bob!

 RC> 10 Sep 08 02:24, you wrote to Earl Croasmun:

 BK>>  For now the ultimate stupidity of that rule is that it is
 BK>>  equivalent to expecting one participant to fight with one hand
 BK>>  tied behind his back. You will let anyone flame me but I am not
 BK>>  allowed to reciprocate.

 RC> Why, if someone came into your echo and flamed you, you
 RC> wouldnt reciprocate, you would give them a vacation, ban
 RC> them or whatever?

 Which is *NOT* what that rule applies to. In my echo no one gets
 to flame. And I don't impose your rules on anyone in my echo,
 not even you.

 BK>>  This leads to my belief that your real intent is to sabatoge the
 BK>>  operation of any echo that is not a flame echo. See... you and
 BK>>  the rest of the hard core right wingers really want to drive out
 BK>>  everyone who stands up to you. So you impose rules that punish
 BK>>  those who try to run their echos differently than you do.

 RC> It is you whom has gone into other echoes and complained
 RC> about how they were ran, or are run..

 Which is legal in those echos, and is not anything near like
 what you are suggesting. Also, there is also the matter of the
 hypocrisy of imposing restrictions on those who don't like
 flames you don't impose on those who like to flame. And most of
 all, imposing restrictions on the moderates and liberals you
 don't impose on the right wingers.

 BK>>  OTOH, if I add a rule mandating that those who post in the
 BK>>  debate echo flame right wingers then it will be legal here. Or,
 BK>>  just allowing the flaming of right wingers would do.

 RC> No he said that if a user is a moderator of an echo, that
 RC> the person would have to comport themselves the same way
 RC> they expect others to do so in their echo.

 And if I expect flaming of right wingers then I am allowed to
 flame right wingers. That *IS* what you said.

 RC> For instance, I have a rule in my echo that requires people
 RC> to use someones name as presented in the message headers,
 RC> therefore I cannot come into here and call Ross Sauer or
 RC> refer to him by his full real name, this would only apply
 RC> to me.

 Yep, as above.

 BK>>  Instead, I expect I will have to modify the rules of my echo. I
 BK>>  will have to add a rule for the protection of the integrity of
 BK>>  the echo against sabatoge by other moderators.

 RC> I do not see how your echo gets adversely affected by
 RC> anything Earl would or could do.

 If any participant in his echo is restricted in his
 participation in his echo by reason of anything to do with
 participating in my echo, then he is sabatoging my echo.
 Moderating an echo is participation. So, if my moderating my
 echo results in limits in my participation in his echo, then my
 echo is affected. Or that is his intent.

 BK>>  The rule will say, if any moderator imposes any rule that
 BK>>  restricts the participation of anyone his echo based on the
 BK>>  participation, in any way, in my echo, that moderator is banned
 BK>>  from my echo.

 RC> Your echo particpants would remain unaffected by Earls rule.

 I am an echo participant. In both echos.

 I would be affected.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

...            Obama - Yes we can!   McCain - No we can't!
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a