AWL> AVTECH is large, XT_ETC will probably never
AWL> go much over a dozen messages a week...

PE> So will slot into AVTECH easily.

AWL> Not from the point of view of AVTECH being a FidoNet Echo...

PE> What possible disadvantage do you see in that?

AWL> No encrypted messages.

RS> What the fuck is the point of encrypting messages on XTs ?

AWL> I'm the moderator, and I allow them.

I wasnt talking about what was allowed, but
what the point of them was in an echo on XTs.

AWL> Limited control over distribution.

RS> Yes, if you are a control freak, maybe. Seems remarkably silly tho.

AWL> I don't want to be responsible (in an editorial sense)
AWL> for any traffic. P4 requires it.

Nope, you completely mangle what P4 says there, just like you
completely mangle most of the detail on fido and the HREOC too.

AWL> Therefor XT_ETC is not now nor ever shall be a FidoNet Echo.

Yes, no one is disputing that that can indeed be done, we
happened to be discussing what was the point of it was tho.

AWL> If someone ports it to FidoNet, they can
AWL> deal with P4 liablility at the gateway.

Whoopy fucking do. A desperately dangerous risk for an echo devoted to XTs.

AWL> A requirement that I bow to P4 whenever it is invoked.

RS> Nope, there is obviously nothing in that
RS> that would be a problem for an XT echo.

AWL> As moderator of XT_ETC, I rule differently...

You cant 'rule' on something like that, you are playing with yourself.

PE> BTW, what are you calling a "Fidonet Echo"?  Is LOCUSER a
fidonet echo?

AWL> Ask BillG. If he (as the primary link) says it is, it is.

RS> Crap. Someone transporting an echo between two places doesnt own it Alex.

AWL> But they determine whether it is FidoNet, AmigaNet, LTUAENet or WankNet...

Nope. And certainly not in the sense that just because Bill moves it,
he gets to proclaim if its a Fido echo or not. Tho he could with some
of the other nets if he is part of those and complies with their net
requirements. Even then its rather iffy, just the act of it moving
thru a particular net doesnt necessarily make it an echo of that net.

AWL> If not, then it isn't.

RS> Ditto.

AWL> Likewise Dave and Tony can decide that it isn't,

RS> Still crap.

AWL> (even if BillG says it is)

RS> Gets sillier by the minute.

AWL> Buy declaring it to be ported to LTUAEnet, TMLnet, BikeNet or  whatever.

It aint quite that simple. Particularly it cant just be proclaimed
to be a Fido echo. Just like Paul cant proclaim that purely local
echo that never leaves his BBS is a fido echo either.

AWL> Their problem then becomes one of P4 compliance for
AWL> messages passing through the netgate back to FidoNet...

Only in the mind of someone who has nutty ideas about P4.

PE> What about FOURTH_REICH?

AWL> Your call...

RS> As it is with LOCUSER

RS> And participants in it arent members of
RS> an unincorporated association either.

AWL> But they could become one quite easily by adopting a set of rules, and
AWL> doing anything (related to those rules) acting towards a common purpose...

Nope, you have the silliest ideas about how you can accidentally
become part of a an operation unintentionally. Its complete tripe
on the unincorporated association claim. And that particular movement
of those two echoes doesnt even 'adopt a set of rules' etc anyway. Wank.

--- PQWK202