Hi Michiel!

Monday July 17 2006, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 MV>>> That is not how it works. The ZCC is the highest authority in
 MV>>> FidoNet and they have rejected the Z7 proposal. You may not like
 MV>>> that and of course you natural reaction is to say that they were
 MV>>> wrong, but that is not going to do any good. I did not like it
 MV>>> either when they ruled against me, and my reaction also was that
 MV>>> they were wrong. But the fact is that that is where the buck
 MV>>> stops. You shall just have to learn to live with it.

 VD>> Yes, but ZCC basis is "quorum". I speak that qourum in FIDO is
 VD>> different from real-live quorum and in our case it was enought.

 MV> That is not what the ZCC decided. Sorry Vladimir, you have no other choice
 MV> then to accept that.

I hope that next our proposal ZCC can decide as more truthful.

 VD>>>> And they can't send mail (only through boss),

 MV>>> Points can crash messages to systems that are on-line.

 VD>>>> and they can't receive mail (only through boss).

 MV>>> Not so. Points *can* be on-line for receiving message directly
 MV>>> without having it routed through their boss. Try sending a
 MV>>> message directly to
 MV>>> 2:280/100.55.

 MV>>> There is not much of an advantage for a point to be on-line for
 MV>>> receiving messages directly, but it *can* be done...

 VD>> Keyword is "directly", in modern world it is
"anachronizm" (old
 VD>> technology). Very most sysops receive his mail by route, and this is
 VD>> more quickly and beatiful way.

 MV> In that case, they have no reason at all to be sysops. Let them be users
 MV> instead...

 MV> But you are wrong. Routing mail was a necessity when sending mail directly
 MV> was too expensive. The new technology of fido over IP has freed us from
 MV> that. We can now send our mail directly without any additional cost. We
 MV> are no longer at the mercy of hubs and hosts that play games with out
 MV> mail.

 MV> I send my mail as directly as possible. That is the new way. Routing mail
 MV> is the old way.

Are you read unpassword incoming? I look it not more one time per day
(without periods of elections or another analogue cases).

At any case easy send mail by establishing password link (by route) with
reliable official system (hub) then direct to system without guarantee of
reading unprotected incoming by receiver.

 VD>>>>  So: point and sysop - different levels and status.

 MV>>> Yep. A point is free form ZMH restrictions....

 VD>> Only. Points are free from all rights and obligations too.

 MV> So what rights - other than the right to send and receive mail - does a
 MV> sysop have?

Voting for example. At common - this is the right to defenite of network
life, and to influence on receive (accept) resolutions relate him.

 MV>>> E-mail only nodes should never have been allowed. They have the
 MV>>> reachability of points and hence *should* be points.

 VD>> Read nodelist or Ward's decisions!

 MV> I know.

 VD>> I agree with you - EON is nonsense, but now they exist...

 MV> That is no reason to make of these kind of mistakes.

But this was made...

 MV>>> And BTW, where *is* Anatoly? AFAIK he is certified ghost.

 VD>> He was a sysop who work in Vietname. After his contract was finish he
 VD>> return to Moscow.

 MV> "Was". his node is off-line....

No - his node is working now. He control it by INTERNET.

 MV>>> Two plus two still does not equal five no matter how many support
 MV>>> that theory...

 VD>> Summary two parts of Uran-235 (at same kg each) and you get very more
 VD>> bad things...

 MV> Put together two masses of 0.5 kg each of U235 and you still end up with 1
 MV> kg of something... provided you included the mass equivalence of the
 MV> realeased energy...

0.5 kg is low, I wrote "same kgs" (I not remember precise number
of critical mass, but it more 10 kgs).

 VD>>  So - 1+1 can be "large number of things", not 2 "pieces
 VD>> of same". And 1 (men) plus 1 (women) give "many"
(childrens)...

 MV> Only if you use different units on either side of the equation.

"The people" at both these cases.
"Kgs of Uran" at previous case.

 VD>> So - social mathematic is not arithmetic!

 MV> There is no such thing as social mathematics. It is an oxymoron.

 MV> Anyway, your word games are unconvincing. 1+1=2, no matter what the
 MV> outcome of the vote.

No. "clear mathematic" is only "theoretical" science,
in the real life his results need re-working (re-thinking) before
application.

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060703