Hello Ward,
On 30 Dec 13 12:18, Ward Dossche wrote to Nicholas Boel:
WD> Nick,
NB>> I've tried telnetting to every one of those zone 4 BBS systems as
NB>> well as trying to telnet to their binkp ports (knowing that
NB>> they're all listed as ICM, not getting a response from any of them
NB>> wasn't very surprising) only to find one available most of the
NB>> time, and that's the ZC.
WD> People from Z1 are a funny breed.
I'm sure many think the same about you as well, although I try not to label
people before knowing them on a better level than this.
WD> For years I've been getting my nose chewed-off for even daring to
WD> mention anythng about the disfunctionality of the technical attributes
WD> associated with what is listed in the Z4-segment. Merely uttering the
WD> thought that there is no functioning Z4 anymore but in the best of
WD> cases a set-up of point-like systems got me banished to hell.
WD> Now it's ... OK ... suddenly ?
Okay for what? I mentioned what I witnessed from my own system at one point in
time. I didn't say there is no zone 4, and I didn't bash zone 4 for being
disfunctional - as you seem to like to do.
WD> First of all, the case of zone-4.
WD> To be quite blunt, there is no zone-4, just some bogus lines in the
WD> nodelist:
Yeah that's pretty blunt. Nowhere near what I said, though. And you think I'm a
funny breed, eh? :(
WD> Eventually it even is obvious to the blind that there is no Z4.
WD> Whenever I dared mentioning that in the past, I got machine-gunned
WD> down by a Z1 firing-squad.
Maybe it's how you went about it that got that response from others? You know,
the people "not at the top" ?
WD> And now Z1-elements are telling me that Z4 is really not that
WD> important?
I didn't say they weren't important. If, in fact, they are real live nodes.. I
said they wouldn't be affected whatsoever unless an NC allowed unpublished
listings in his segment before the RCs and ZCs. I highly doubt this would
happen, and believe Manuel would be the first in zone 4 to join the effort.
Therefore, nothing should be affected in zone 4 - even if no changes were made
to the current segments.
You really should get your story straight before putting words into my messages.
[Cropped out story-time - since what I said seemed to get your panties in a
bunch in regards to zone 4.]
WD> There is 1 purpose only to have a zone-4 though, and it's purely
WD> political ... not that it will ever happen but in case a showdown
WD> occurs among ZCs there will never be a "no decision" situation with
WD> the uneven number of 3. Also, there will be no ZC to be awoken from
WD> the dead to cast a vote out of nowhere.
That's up to you guys to bicker over. Most of the rest of us would just like to
continue enjoying the network for it's _good_ things and not worry about the
constant fighting a select few always do. Enjoying the network also consists of
allowing whatever developers we have left to do their thing, and embrace their
achievements - especially if said software is deployed to advance the network.
WD> Now, as far as it concerns AllowUnpub ... there is a technical issue
WD> here with the setup of ERRFLAGS that makes the parameter irrelevant. I have
WD> explained the situation in direct netmail to Andrew Leary and
WD> Kees Van Eeten and the problem is in the process of being dealt with.
WD> Kees doesn't shout, he suggests, he helps ... that's a main trait of
WD> the man who is worth his weight in ... hay. :-)
WD> Any more questions?
Why do you seem to lift your nose to everyone else? Does being a ZC of Fidonet
do that to a person? Not really my idea of a good lifetime achievement, to be
completely honest. :(
After that, nothing further.. It seems you are the go-to guy if you want
something that could help and move the network forward sat on for a lot
longer than it needs to be (from what I remember, not the first time?). Thanks
for that at least.
Regards,
Nick
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
* Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)
|
