Janis Kracht wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday June 03 2004 at 17:59:

JK>>> you know, I really did count Ward as a friend. When you said
JK>>> somewhere that we are too much alike, I laughed .

RB>> You shouldn't have, or if so ironically, since it's true. You two
RB>> have a lot i common.

JK> One of the reasons I laughed was not because we are so alike.. it was
JK> your view of me that I found humorous.

And what is exactly my view of you as you see it? It might also be
interesting to know what you find humorous in the present situation.

JK>>> The big difference that I see is that I would never twist policy 4
JK>>> to accomplish some ridiculous goal.

RB>> Ward doesn't think he's doing that either.

JK> Of course he's not going to admit that he is twisting policy.. He
JK> knows he's doing it though.

Does he? The evidence seems to indicate otherwise, since if that weren't
the case, why didn't he organize a ZCC vote to get rid of Bob Satti the
same way you did to get rid of Ward? Ward disliked Bob Satti at least as
much as you dislike Ward Dossche and if he had seen any chance of recalling
Bob with a ZCC vote he certainly would have tried that. But he didn't, at
least not to my knowledge. The standoff lasted for years in that case,
until Bob finally stepped down of his own accord.

You may counter that there was no chance of a majority, but even if true
that shouldn't have prevented Ward from trying - assuming he really
believed a ZCC vote that wasn't called or organized by the IC could
actually topple an IC and simultaneously be policy compliant.

No, I think you misjudge the situation on this point.

RB>> Both of you are wrong.

JK> What exactly am I wrong about, Bob?  You'll need to be a bit clearer
JK> about that.

You're operating on thin ice when you argue that a recall procedure that
was obviously not acceptable for Bob Satti is suddenly just fine for Ward
Dossche. And Ward is on thin ice when he insists on a policy
interpretation, however honestly, that would effectively create an IC for
life. His new voting system comes on top of that, and is obviously
unacceptable for everyone except those in Z2 who want to have _all_ the say
in fido.

But one thing is certain: until _all_ of you come down to earth, stop
insisting on maximum demands and decide to negotiate some kind of
compromise, there'll be no change in the status quo = standoff.

You think you're 100% right, Ward does too. There's no room for compromise
there, and that doesn't do fido any good at all. You're not "plain
nodes" with no influence on fido, you're ZCs and should consider that
fact in your actions.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613