On 9/11/2019 08:46, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

 NA>>>> Show me, fucknuts, where in P4 it states you have freedom of
 LL> speech.

 LL>>> Every sysop is lord and master over his/her own system.

 DD>> And every other lord and master is not obliged to allow your system to
 DD>> communicate with theirs.

 LL> That would be a disservice to those who use their system.

That's the joys of being a lord and master. People fuck you around and you just
fuck back.

 LL>>> A legal contract must be signed (and preferably dated) by all
 LL>>> parties.  Usually two, being the norm.  Who or what are the parties,
 LL>>> and who signed the document?

 LL>>> It's a simple question.

 LL>>> Show me who signed that piece of cyberjunk, if you can.

 DD>> The obligation comes from the party your node is trying to connect to. If
 DD>> they don't want you connecting then you have no right to connect.

 LL> Did the node one is trying to connect with sign that piece of
 LL> cyberjunk?  If so, please show his/her signature.

NOBODY signed it. We signified in a message to the NC that we would
comply/adhere to the technical requirements.

 DD>> Even in this day of IP nodes fire-walling out other nodes has been an
 DD>> oft-used practice (and may again when a certain party is resurrected)

 LL> It is one thing to use an unsigned document as some kind of guideline.
 LL> Quite another to insist it is binding on all sysops and sysop wannabes.

If one does not comply with the technical specs there is every chance that
one's system will not be able to connect with others.

When applying for a node number/mail feed on has to comply with the requests of
the other party or it simply won't happen. You have NO bargaining power.
They'll just tell you to "fuck off".

 LL> Michiel van der Vlist insists on all sysops following "the rules" -
 LL> whatever those rules may be.  He also has often stated his dislike
 LL> and distaste for P4, for reasons of his own.

And yet he still cpmplys with the technical requirements.

 DD>> And yet they submit to its technical requirements ... or they cannot
 DD>> connect.

 LL> Just because some technical requirements for making this network
 LL> work are noted in P4 does not make the document legally binding on
 LL> anyone.

NO - it makes it practically binding. You don't adhere to the tech specs then
you don't connect.

 LL>>> And yet it is stated in P4 that wannabe sysops are compelled to
 LL>>> swear a loyalty oath to that piece of cyberjunk in order to become
 LL>>> a full-fledged sysop!  What a crock of holy baloney!

 DD>> If that is the requirement of the NC you're applying to then you have to
 DD>> comply of they will not list you.

 LL> In Germany people used to have to swear a loyalty oath to Hitler
 LL> in order to survive.  Should sysops have to do the same in order to
 LL> remain nodelisted?  Should applicants be forced to do so in order
 LL> to appease the Hitler in charge of Fidonet?

Ask the NC you've selected to send your nodelisting request to what their
particular requirements are. You'll still have to adhere to certain technical
specs however or your connections won't happen.

 LL> That is what P4 says applicants have to do in order to even be
 LL> considered.  Please tell me that makes sense.

Their sand pit you're trying to play in, their rules.
[...]

 LL>>> What that means is you have no legitimate authority to act
 LL>>> in any capacity as a representative for other sysops in Fidonet.
 LL>>> None at all.

 DD>> And no obligation to list your system or communicate with it.

 LL> Thank God Trump lives in the Twitterverse rather than Fidonet.

 DD>> Fidonet is about co-operation.

 LL> Cooperative anarchy.  That is what Tom Jennings called it.

Another non-entity you're quoting. Jennings dropped out of FIdonet yonks ago.

 DD>> Have you heard of this concept?

 LL> Hey.  I give credit where credit is due.  Tom Jennings said it first.

 DD>> Your either co-operate with the others or you find you're limited to your
 DD>> own sand pit and no more.

 LL> Tom Jennings did not say either/or.

 LL> He stated, quite clearly, cooperative anarchy.

 LL> That is two words.

And he no longer has any say in the Fidonet sand pit. You have to comply with
the requests of today's nodelist clerks.


 LL>>> You see, all authority/power is vested in individual sysops.
 LL>>> And to date, they still maintain the right to refuse to allow
 LL>>> any and all others to usurp their own power/authority.

 DD>> And those others can exert their right/powers not to allow their systems
to
 DD>> communicate with yours.

 LL> It is not either/or.

 LL> The term is cooperative anarchy.

When will you start cooperating?


 LL> cooperative - willing to work with others.

 LL> anarchy - a social structure without government or law and order.

 LL> Put the two together and what do you have?  Fidonet!

Fidonet where we have to cooperate with others with regard to their technical
specs - or it doesn't happen.

 LL>>> David D's definition stands unchanged.

 DD>> But only on OUR OWN systems. We have no obligation to allow others to
 DD>> connect with our little empires.

 LL> But oh so much more fun to play with everybody's toys rather
 LL> than just your own!

But be limited to only the node that will give you access. If you were
nodelisted you would get direct access to all of the other systems - plus
access to all of the secret "nodelisted sysop only" areas.

-- 

Regards
David

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