Subj : alternate routing chart
To   : Lesley-Dee Dylan
From : Bob Seaborn
Date : Tue Apr 17 2001 05:42 am

 >BS>       I'm pointing this at you because you are the
 >BS> hatch point for these bogus
 >BS> routing  charts.
 >
 > Bogus?  The current "official" list keeper is no longer official, by her

      BOGUS!

 > own words, since her listing as ZLC was removed from the nodelist.
 > Therefore, Foxy is just a volunteer, just as the other committee are
 > just volunteers.

      The job of maintaining the official Zone One Routing chart was assigned
by the former ZC1 to the former ZEC1.  The former ZEC1 chose to not do it 
himself, so he assigned someone else to do the job.  Since Foxy *IS* the 
current ZEC1, it is a given that she is willing, AND *able* to do the job 
herself.

      It is not up to you, or anuone else, to take that away from her.  ONLY
the ZC1 is able to do so.

 >
 >BS>       First of all, you do NOT have permission from me
 >BS> to make reference to
 >BS> 1:140/1, REC17, or for that matter, ANY net in region
 >BS> 17, since you do not have specific permission from
 >BS> either RC17, REC17, or the NC of the net in question.
 >BS> Accordingly, please remove ANY and All reference to
 >BS> 1:140/1, REC17, or the R17 nets until you do have such
 >BS> permission in verified writing.
 >
 > Are you planning to make routing information into Region 17 a big, dark

      I am ashamed to have my name and position associated with these bogus
files, and have chosen to NOT associate myself with the power-mongers who 
choose to hide behind Stephen.  Since permission to use my name, position, or 
node numbers, was not sought PRIOR to publication, I refuse to have it used 
now.


 > secret?  Why?  Exactly how old is the last routing chart produced in
 > Region 17?  Do you have that much need to control the flow of mail in
 > Western Canada?  That kind of power is corrupting, Bob.  Trying to
 > maintain control and power can lead to breaches of trust, just like
 > happened with Bob Kohl.

      ROUTELST.R17 is none of your business, you are not in R17, therefore
have no say.  R17 is happy with me as their REC, beyond that you are not to be 
involved.

 >
 > All this talk about how the Z1B is "splitting" fidonet, and when some
 > volunteers put together a committee to attempt some real help to Fido,
 > this is the response they get - "No, you can't do that, I didn't give
 > you permission."

      Because their obvious attempt to usurp the official policies and
documents is well documented.


 >
 > What makes you think permission is needed in writing to make reference
 > to someone in a document?  Do you think the Saskabush Ratter, or
 > whatever your local newspaper is called, needs Jean Cretien's permission
 > to make reference to him in an article?  Does the Canadian Post Office
 > have permission to post your address in their postal code books and on
 > their web site?

      Yes, they do, at least as far as I am concerned.

 >
 > But I kind of think that the needed permission was granted by someone
 > higher up the heirarchy, with several challenges to others to produce an
 > alternate routelist.

      No permission was ever sought of me, or granted by me!

 >
 >
 > Msg#661, Apr-12-01 09:02:34
 >    From: FOXY FERGUSON
 >      To: RUTH ARGUST
 > Subject: ROUTELST.098
 > Produce a zone routelist.
 >
 >
 > Msg#688, Apr-14-01 15:46:16
 >    From: FOXY FERGUSON
 >      To: LESLEY-DEE DYLAN
 > Subject: z1b link
 >LD> Did you really think that there was no one in the Z1B who
 >LD> would be willing to fix the routelist?
 > They've been threatening to put out their own for the past 3
 > months. I've yet to see their list or know of anyone who has.
 >
 >
 > Msg#614, Apr-09-01 14:42:10
 >    From: Foxy Ferguson
 >      To: David Calafrancesco
 > Subject: ROUTELST.098
 > If you don't like it, your remedy is as it has always been even before
 > the
 > zone list came into being: do your own!
 >
 >
 > Amazing, isn't it?  Someone took her up on her challenge.  And that just
 > makes you livid!  And you even want to block distribution in the
 > existing channels.


      Yes, because as I previously stated, should someone wish those documents
distributed, they should have been supplied to the ZEC1 for distribution.

      It's quite obvious that you wish to bypass the official distribution
channels to sponsor your own form of anarchy.  And I, for one, am not prepared 
to cooperate, or be involved.

--- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50
 * Origin: http://www.nwstar.com (1:140/12)

.