PE> REASON for these do-your-own nets to start up.  Fidonet is
PE> absolutely adequate.  Any echo being carried by another-net
PE> could be just as easily carried by the same people within fidonet.

AWL> P4: - require legal/technical responsibility for all messages

PE> So?

AWL> I don't want that problem, look at the Prodigy case in the US.

Pity thats US law and has sweet fuck all to do with our law Alex.

AWL> P4 is just as bad

Pity thats not relevant to our law Alex.

AWL> (garth has been vindicated)...

Nope, it aint Aust law Alex.

AWL> There are a few largish ones, PODS AmigaNet etc,
AWL> but they have nothing like the coverage of FidoNet...
AWL> So Rod's go start your own line fall flat...

PE> So, why don't you start up your own wanknet then if you hate
PE> fidonet so much.  All the people who agree that fidonet's
PE> rules are bad will be rushing in droves to your new net.

AWL> If I had say $20k plus $10kpa, I'd do so.

Still playing with yourself I see, none of that is necessary.

AWL> In order to coimpete with Fight-o-net

No one said anything about 'compete', we happened to be talking
about what you could do since you hate every detail of fido and
declaim it should be done differently. You can do that with Wankernet
any time you care to, for no more hardware than you currently have.
Or software either.

AWL> I'd need to be able to offer as wide a hub structure,

Nope, the people in fido mostly like it the way it is or dont
care enough about what they dont like to bother with another net.

AWL> as many and varied echos and a whole bunch of other stuff
AWL> which keeps people using Fido in spite of problems with the
AWL> assortment of loonies who seem to infest Fido like fleas...

More silly bullshit. You can continue to be a fido point, have your
pathetically silly Wankernet which no one will bother with except a
few other just as loony people, and thankfully there to many of those.

AWL> A gateway that would cost you "a few k a year"
AWL> would probably cost me 10 times as much.

Thats your problem.

AWL> Also that is a recurring cost, our 10k is probably
AWL> going to be reusable (with a little luck we should
AWL> get full costs (if not we can survive the experience))

PE> If you're not willing to shell out the $ to run your own
PE> gateway, you've got no right to dictate how others run theirs.

He does have a tiny point there Alex.

PE> And actually, I made a mistake, it should only cost
PE> about $400/year at present internet traffic mail rates.

AWL> That's what it would cost *you* where you live. We don't
AWL> have the luxury of cheap access to the Internet here.

Thats your problem Alex, and something you should bear in
mind when demanding other must do a gateway a particular
way. Because what you actually managed to achieve was to
NOT get it done the way you demanded, AND it disappeared too.

AWL> Anyway, MB wasn't running *his* gateway, he was running
AWL> FidoNet's Z3 gateway... Not the same thing at all...

Fraid so Alex, he volunteered to do a particular type of gating, and
withdrew that volunteering when pricks like you pissed him off enough.

And presumably a significant number of people noticed the obscenity and
wont be volunteering to do that gateway themselves any time soon either.

--- PQWK202