Ward Dossche wrote to Robert Bashe on Sunday May 30 2004 at 12:55:

RB>> Assuming you bothered to read my comment on this, you know what I
RB>> think.

WD> About half of your messages always require for the other party to
WD> re-read what you wrote. Either everybody else in Fidonet must be
WD> extremely dumb or you are a bad writer.

WD> I go for the latter.

As I mentioned in my other message today, snotty, supercilious comments
such as this are what is fueling the present mess. I would dearly have
hoped that one of you ZCs would have written what I've written, and tried
to get you together the way I have. But all you seem to be able to do is
point fingers and try to smear the other side to gain support with your own
people.

RB>> Assuming everyone really believes _all_ the messages are crossposted.
RB>> But why should they? Your "solution" would be no better than
RB>> attempting to keep ZCC a "closed" echo, and I wonder at your
RB>> about-face in this matter since  you were originally the one who was
RB>> in _favor_ of opeining ZCC read-only to all sysops.

WD> I am and remain in favour of the openness.

You present postings contradict that.

WD> There's just no trust in certain North American brethren-in-Fido that
WD> they would not abuse a read-only status. For the moment I cannot
WD> handle "read only" material except on an honour-basis
which has worked
WD> for years in REGCON.EUR.

Regcon.eur has been as good as empty for many months.

There are no "unauthorized" messages from non-Z2 nodes in
enet.sysop even though it's open and presumably also runs via your system.

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? 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.

Any attempt to do what you propose at this stage would be worse than trying
to keep ZCC secret in the first place.

WD> The only valid statement to be made is about legacy-software. But then
WD> there's nothing in P4 that prohibits the use, I'm perfectly OK.
WD> Requiring an upgrade (which is not available since it's abandone-ware)
WD> or a change over to some other product even is a violation of P4.

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

Thanks for nothing.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613