27 Apr 06 22:36, Joe Delahaye wrote to Roy Witt:


 >>  VD> Because this netmail required his reaction - sysop is
"passive".
 >>  VD> "Inactive" sysop read his netmail as minimum...
 >>
 >> Given that the netmail required a reply, an action the sysop must do
 >> to maintain active status and he didn't, means he's inactive.
 >>

 JD> Who says it needed a reply?

The questions in the 'referandum' required a reply if the sysop had an
interest. If not, then that sysop is inactive in that regard. Of course,
if the netmail sat on his system and was never read (and you don't know
that it was or wasn't), there would never be a reply forthcoming.

 JD> Just because a sysop refuses to answer, does not make him inactive.

That would make him indifferent to what's going on, or more to the point;
inactive.

 JD> You, and others have been arguing that point before.

Yes, and you keep on arguing the endless point of stubborness, which may
or may not be the case. I suspect that if they're dutchmen, then they're
really stubborn and won't reply to anything. Or if they do, their
reply will be something really stupid.

 JD> It is especially true if the netmail is not from his NC/RC.

That would only indicate that some nodelist clerk has stuck his nose into
business that doesn't concern him, in regards to the referendum.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000