12 Dec 06 17:32, Matt Bedynek wrote to Roy Witt:

 MB> Hello Roy.

 MB> 12 Dec 06 10:26, you wrote to Joe Delahaye:

 RW>> Your ZC may have told you that, but there's a need for POTS *Cs,
 RW>> none the less. Those *Cs without POTS capability cannot carry out
 RW>> the full duties of a coordinator per P4.

 MB> Until P4 is rewritten, which is not likely to happen, many are in
 MB> noncompliance.  Furthermore, if one adopted such a hardline
 MB> interpretation of it, you would not have been able to remain in R10
 MB> while a ION.

Actually, that's untrue. My location was out of the net 202 area. And if
you want to talk about non-compliant listings, ask Donovan to tell you why
the ION net (211) never had anybody listed who was ever available.

 MB>   I am confident you are aware of the "spirit of the law vs the
 MB> letter of the law."  Unfortunately, all to often, people
 MB> default to the later when dealing with the situations dealing with
 MB> others.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference. That's why I've always advocated that P4
be thrown in the trash. Too many *Cs use it to bash sysops over the head.

However, if even one person in the network has to abide by it, then one
should expect that the *Cs would be 'clean as a whistle' ...

               R\%/itt




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