DM> As agreed by the ZC, Paul Edwards was
DM> validly suspended for 6 weeks from Fidonet.

DM> My reading of Policy 4 is that your attempts, in the message below, to
DM> bypass this temporary excommuncation are a violation of Policy. If you
DM> continue with such actions I will file a Policy Complaint with Ted Harrison

PE> Unbelievable.  Actually, Ted rang me up and said the same thing.
PE> I asked him what was in the origin line and he said that *I* was
PE> reinterpreting policy. Bloody hell, as far as I'm aware, I should even
PE> be able to be a point, nevermind someone just reposting one of my messages.

JT> Technically, I think either as a point, BBS
JT> user or whatever, it is classed as a "feed".

Pity that the great unwashed, users etc, are
irrelevant on 'feeds' as far as P4 is concerned.
Taint possible to excommunicate a user, only a sysop.

They also have no say whatever on what you two choose
to do with a non fido echo between yourselves either.

Corse you may CHOOSE to not have to go thru the rigmarole
of rubbing their noses in their error in a legal sense too.

JT> You simply giving me a file to send out is stretching it just a bit,
JT> well, it actually stretches it just a lot, but still well within
JT> the defined limits set by DM.  He makes his own rules remember?

Sure, but that doesnt mean he gets to have any rule he likes. The most
obvious example was that utterly mindless bullshit involved with the
suspension becoming indefinite if Paul ever dared to mention it to a soul.

JT> Mind you, he was rather careful in his wording to me, he said
JT> that he, as a single node, would place a PC against me, another
JT> single node, and that the NC (ted) would be the one to make the
JT> decision. He was very clear with that bit, and after what happened
JT> in zone3_sysop, I don't think he would try it any other way. :-)

JT> But really though, the whole situation has turned into another
JT> slang match. The original one was verbal abuse due to threats.
JT> Now it is verbal abuse between differing interpretations of policy,
JT> by nodes who have no authority to make the ultamate decision anyway.

Yeah, he appears to have just decided to cause as much
damage as he can on the way out basically. Rather obscene.

JT> So far, he has verified that David Nugent was one of the
JT> persons consulted and OKed the excommunication, this is
JT> no real suprise, but useful for those who are keeping tabs.

PE> WHAT???  David Nugent OK'd the excommunication?  How do you know that?
PE> That's certainly not the gist of what David was saying previously.

JT> Look at the above DM quote.  "As agreed by the
JT> ZC, Paul Edwards was validly suspended for 6 weeks"

Trouble is we have also seen a quote from somewhere where Nugent ALSO
appeared to be saying that he thought that that stank to high heaven.

Corse he is rather notorious for some FUCKING bizarre interpretations
of the rules, so he may have essentially been saying that he thought
that that stank to high heaven, but was within the power of an NC to do.

JT> as far as I am currently aware, ZC stands for Zone Co-ordinator,
JT> and the said ZC would mean OUR ZC, who is currently David Nugent.

Sure, that bit seems pretty clear. Corse I wouldnt put
it past More to deliberately tell flagrant lies either.
@EOT:

---