>> You present postings contradict that.

 WD> That certainly then explains why Malcolm is pissed at me and
 WD> Renato for ¨making ZCC-material available.

no, it doesn't... the others are "pissed" because no one has
asked them if it is ok with them for their postings to be made public...
that's quite simple... in the past, and this has already been covered, you
had stated that only the stuff that originated from your keyboard would be
made public and that hasn't happened, either...

 WD> I've never seen a conference dry-up so fast as ZCC after the
 WD> reality of the ¨crossposting caught on.

no doubt... i'd have stopped posting, too, if i had said that it wasn't ok
for anyone to make my postings available to a wider audience and no one
asked before doing so... at least renato pulled the file back... granted,
there was some leakage but still, the file was pulled back... from what
i've seen, it was even after that that the crosspostings in ZCC-PUBLIC
started (back?) up...

 >> WD> For the moment I cannot
 >> WD> handle "read only" material except on an
 >> WD> honour-basis which has worked
 >> WD> for years in REGCON.EUR.
 >>
 >> Regcon.eur has been as good as empty for many months.

 WD> The 'honour system', Bob, worked and works flawless.

it is not flawless... its been tried in Z1 over the years and has /always/
failed... perhaps those in Z2 are better able to keep secrets and not
open/slip up when something controversial happens? i would, too, if i had
been thru what a lot of Z2 has been exposed to since the late 1800
onwards... hummm... there's that learning from history thing, again...

 >> You aren't the only one who would move ZCC.
 >>
 >> And if you try to keep ZCC secret, "promising" to export all
 >> messages to ZCC-PUBLIC, who's going to believe you at this
 >> stage?

 WD> Janis Kracht would jump on it the first moment she saw fit.
 WD> That is the ¨guarantee.

janis wouldn't have to, i'm sure... isn't it bad enough, right now, that
others out here in the rest of the network are calling you on your words
written in the past? they served for you then but now the meanings have
somehow been changed to fit the current agenda?? pardon??
>

 >> You've undermined your own credibility
 >> with your wild swings in recent postings, and I'm not talking
 >> only about your credibility with your opponents,
 >> but with your  friends as well.

 WD> "Friends" are "friends" ... they need a bit
more than silly
 WD> mails to sway. ¨If it were to depend to Fidonet only then
 WD> these easily swayable individuals ¨are not "friends".

 WD> Besides, who else is complaining except yourself, some
 WD> apparent Helmut ¨Hullen worshipper and the less than a
 WD> handful (like in 2 or 3) diehards?

are you saying that those of us who are actually voicing their concerns,
doubts and opinions are not worthy of such? and what about those who are
not doing so in public but in local or private areas?? are they, too, not
worthy??

 WD> Just accept that it has all become rather irrelevant.

what all has become irrelevant?

 >> Translation: since my system can't handle read-only echos, I
 >> don't want any and nobody can make me change.

 WD> Absolutely not what you fabricate. Just:

 WD> "I cannot handle one-way traffic therefore it is either 2-way
 WD> or no-way. In ¨the latter case crossposting is the next best
 WD> thing".

that's what you've been saying but they in other messages, you seem to
indicate otherwise...

 WD> Are you so desperate to score you need to put words in my
 WD> mouth which were ¨never there? Just as Malcolm did in his
 WD> last message inhere? Just as Richard ¨Peer did in ZCC? Just
 WD> as Janis did in ASIAN_LINK?

 WD> And I need to trust these people and find a compromise? Aw
 WD> c'mon ... ;-)

no, you don't need to trust anyone other than yourself and you're making a
mockery of that on your own... don't believe me? then answer these
questions...

  1. why did you try to rewrite policy to support that you were the top of the chain?

  2. why did you disappear after posting your decree about weighted voting?

  3. why did you say that you would crosspost only what originated at your keyboard
     and now go back on that word?

  4. why do you put on the "pointy headed boss" act when you have
no authorization to do so?

)\/(ark