Robert Couture wrote to Robert Bashe on Friday May 28 2004 at 10:40:

RB>> "Suddenly"? I can remember back to the days Ward started up
RB>> ZCC-PUBLIC. Can't really say the idea of opening the echo read-only
RB>> was all that sudden.

RC> And at that time he stated that only messages originating on /his/
RC> keyboard would be cross-posted. He has gone against his word.

You're commenting on something that I never wrote. The subject was the idea
of opening ZCC read-only.

RC> Seems that is yet another example of him being untrustworthy.

Like Renato? Remember, he's the one who got the ball rolling on this. Do
you also consider him "untrustworthy" for that?

RB>> And as far as my own comments are concerned, sure they have something
RB>> to do with the present situation and the way it was exacerbated by
RB>> the attempted secrecy. I personally gained some interesting insights
RB>> by reading the archive, and in contrast to the fears some have -
RB>> Malcolm in particular - I didn't find any villains lurking with
RB>> knives to carve up anyone else, nor did I see anything particularly
RB>> reprehensible or even wildly exciting. Just some facts, instead of
RB>> speculation. I found that refreshing.

RC> Yes. But there was no reason that the echo needs be made public.

So you think that the echo can be kept secret - let's be polite and just
say "private" - and still people won't devote any thought to that
and won't wonder about exactly what kind of backroom politics is being
played, and no rumors will be spread that one side will deny and the other
claim to be true?

If you really think that, I'd say your experience of humankind and their
reactions must be pretty limited. It's pretty naive to expect trust and
belief when you yourself practice distrust and secretiveness.

RC> Yes it was nice to see that there was no plotting going on, but still
RC> no reason why it has to be public.

Nothing more to comment there.

RB>> You're confusing Z2 with Ward, and assuming Ward has no ground to
RB>> stand on. I disagree in both cases, and think that both sides of the
RB>> present disagreement have their points. The only peoblem is that
RB>> neither side is 100% right, and neither 100% wrong. As soon as both
RB>> recognize that and start to work together instead of to cross
RB>> purposes, the faster the situation will be resolved.

RC> Possibly. But Ward has made some grave errors that are 100% wrong.

And he isn't the only one, as I've noted time and again. Your point?

RB>> Your opinion. Others may not share it, certainly not in the sweeping
RB>> sense you express it.

RC> No?  Tell me how Ward's rewrite of Policy is helpful?

Now here's the original text from you, to which my comment applied:

RC> They have done nothing detrimental to Fido.  What they did was a boon
RC> to FidoNet - they removed an IC that was doing things against Policy.

That sounds a bit different than "Ward's rewrite of policy [sic] is
helpful", doesn't it? Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

RB>> Also an assumption that is not shared by all. But I agree that my
RB>> opinion, as yours, does not affect the situation. However, we both
RB>> seem to be voicing our respective opinions without any regard for
RB>> that...

RC> It seems the only ones that don't share that opinion are the ones Ward
RC> has in his "camp."

Then you have been reading rather selectively, and thinking rather
selectively as well. Go back and check. You'll find that there are no
_absolute_ rights or wrongs on any side, but a lot of misinterpretation,
excessive emotionality and attempts to bend policy to say what one wishes
it to say. On _all_ sides.

RB>> You mean, first let one side win 100%, the other agreeing to lose
RB>> 100%, and _then_ we'll see what can be done? That's a dream. Any
RB>> resolution of the situation is going to be a compromise.

RC> Let's weigh that fact as above. Who commited the most heinous acts
RC> here? Or the most?

;-)))

Robert, you're being funny without intending to be. This is _exactly_ what
people do who are not interested in a solution to a dispute, but only want
to get their way. And the answer to your question is: depends on who you're
talking to.

RB>> Finger-pointing, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is not a constructive
RB>> method for reducing tensions and resolving disputes.

RC> Stating verfiable facts is not finger pointing.

Stating assumptions as fact, and placing 100% of the blame for a dispute on
the side you personally don't care for is.

RC> Look above. No both sides are not 100% right. But the ZCC did it's
RC> best to follow P4 to the letter, whereas Ward did far too many things
RC> against P4.

Even if true, that gets us no further than where we are now. And the basic,
immutable fact of the matter is that neither side is going to agree to be
the 100% loser, and since there's no way to force anyone to do anything in
fido, it would be common sense to look for a middle ground. A compromise,
as I've been preaching for quite a while now. Because otherwise we can
argue ourselves hoarse and _nothing_ will happen.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613