Date: Tue, 12.12.06 19:34
FidoNews Editor MIA?
MB> Hello Roy.
MB> 12 Dec 06 10:26, you wrote to Joe Delahaye:
RW>> Your ZC may have told you that, but there's a need for POTS *Cs,
RW>> none the less. Those *Cs without POTS capability cannot carry out
RW>> the full duties of a coordinator per P4.
MB> Until P4 is rewritten, which is not likely to happen, many are in
MB> noncompliance. Furthermore, if one adopted such a hardline
MB> interpretation of it, you would not have been able to remain in R10
MB> while a ION.
Actually, that's untrue. My location was out of the net 202 area. And if
you want to talk about non-compliant listings, ask Donovan to tell you why
the ION net (211) never had anybody listed who was ever available.
MB> I am confident you are aware of the "spirit of the law vs the
MB> letter of the law." Unfortunately, all to often, people
MB> default to the later when dealing with the situations dealing with
Yes, I'm aware of the difference. That's why I've always advocated that P4
be thrown in the trash. Too many *Cs use it to bash sysops over the head.
However, if even one person in the network has to abide by it, then one
should expect that the *Cs would be 'clean as a whistle' ...
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)