JT> So if you were to post in a newsgroup, and that group
JT> is gated to fido via a big name BBS, then technically,
JT> the sysop of the gating system would be responsible for
JT> "rectifying the problem". This is a requirement of P4.

RS> You havent actually established that Paul appearing as the poster
RS> of a message is actually a 'problem' in the P4 policy sense tho.

PE> Both the ex-N711-NC and the current N712 interpret
PE> the fact that my INITIALS appeared in QUOTED TEXT
PE> of a message to mean that John was violating P4.

Yeah, its certainly complicated because of that specific mention
in P4 of deliberately trying to circumvent an excommunications.

Trouble with their line of argument tho is that P4 certainly doesnt
attempt to say that say a USER can be excommunicated forever and
that whichever BBS he shows up on later gets excommunicated itself.

Yet again, just more evidence that P4 is a totally fucked
document. Not exactly what you might call a shocking revelation.

PE> And then Ted H had the audacity to complain about ME reinterpreting policy!

Yeah, the total collection *Cs are FUCKING weird. Presumably
the structure P4 imposes selects out control freaks and total
fuckwits to be Cs. Bit like Darwinian selection in some ways.

In some ways its a rather interesting look at just what a document
like that or constitution etc for a club/association can produce
in the sense of it actually producing the fucked result like that.
@EOT:

---