On 4/04/2019 22:53, Dan Clough -> David Drummond wrote:

 DD>> And if one does not have a copy to hand nor has the document
 DD>> memorised then how does one know the documented role?

 DC> That's a seperate question that was not the topic of discussion.
 DC> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, so I'll try to
 DC> lay it out more simply for you:

 DC> What you claimed (right there above, since I didn't Bjorn-snip it
 DC> out), is that the IC's role is only defined in P4 *IF* one has a copy
 DC> of P4 at hand.  That is false.  The IC's role is clearly defined
 DC> in P4 *WHETHER* *OR* *NOT* you have a copy of P4 at hand.  See?

It might mean that to you, however, if I am unaware of what the role was, and
did not have the document to advise me, then I do not acknowledge that supposed
role.

In the imaginary world of Fidonet I am the supreme lord of my system. IF I do
not perceive a rule/edict then it does NOT exist at my system.

[...]

 DC>> Another clue that you missed was where Bjorn even stated where the
 DC>> IC role is discussed in P4 (even though he got the section wrong).

 DD>> Read it again = he did have it right.

 DC> Nope.  Section 8.1 that he references describes how a Policy
 DC> change might be initiated.

 DC> The *ROLE* of the IC, which is what this whole thread is about
 DC> (regardless of the diversion attempts), is described in Section 7.

Bj”rn WAS discussing policy changes at the time he made that comment. Section 8
was the correct answer.

Of course YOU may have been discussing something else entirely.

-- 

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0