Subj : alternate routing chart
To   : Carl Austin Bennett
From : Bob Seaborn
Date : Tue Apr 17 2001 07:32 am

 >
 > Have you obtained written permission from both Mr. Monteith and I to use
 > the 1:12/1 and 1:12/0 addresses in your file BACKSTAT.NA or is that
 > bogus too?

      By arranging a link with a NAB ZHub, you have granted permission.

 >
 > By the standard you apply, I guess I should ask to see the signed
 > documents.

      Whatever Carl, play your silly games.

 >
 >BS> ROUTELST.R17 is none of your business, you are not in R17, therefore
 > have
 >BS> no say.
 >
 > It does make it awkward for systems outside your region to route mail to
 > your sysops if info you distribute to the rest of the zone is completely
 > outdated.

      Not at all, please tell me when the ROUTELST.R17 was last hatched?

 >
 >BS> R17 is happy with me as their REC, beyond that you are not to be
 >BS> involved.
 >
 > Have you asked them all, or do you presume to speak for the Region now?

      The REC works for the RC, the RC17 specifically asked me to stay on as
REC17.  Snooping in other region's matters now, Carl?

 >
 >LDD> All this talk about how the Z1B is "splitting" fidonet, and when
 > someLDD> volunteers put together a committee to attempt some real help
 > to Fido,
 >LDD> this is the response they get - "No, you can't do that, I didn't
 > giveLDD> you permission."
 >
 >BS> Because their obvious attempt to usurp the official policies and
 >BS> documents is well documented.
 >
 > What official policy or document is this?

      Check with the ZC/ZEC, they are/were the ones who mandated a zone
routing chart.

 >
 > There is no policy stating who may or may not produce a zone ROUTELST.

      But to expect official recognition is another matter.

 >
 >LDD> Do you think the Saskabush Ratter, or whatever your local newspaper is
 >LDD> called, needs Jean Cretien's permission to make reference to him in an
 >LDD> article?  Does the Canadian Post Office have permission to post your
 >LDD> address in their postal code books and on their web site?
 >
 >BS> Yes, they do, at least as far as I am concerned.
 >
 > In that case, did you ask StephenM or I before listing 1:12/1 or 1:12/0
 > in your documents? You can't have this both ways, Bob, pick one: yes or
 > no.

      You arranged a link with 10/3, Stephen arranged a link with 140/1, in
essence granting permission to record such linkage.

 >
 > The standard which you seek to apply is going to cause you some
 > problems.

      Not at all.

 >
 >LDD> But I kind of think that the needed permission was granted by
 > someoneLDD> higher up the heirarchy, with several challenges to others
 > to produce
 >LDD> an alternate routelist.
 >
 >BS> No permission was ever sought of me, or granted by me!
 >
 > May I ask who put you in charge of deciding who can or cannot produce a
 > zone routelist? You appear incapable of even keeping a regional one
 > updated.

      I reserve the right to allow my name to be used, and where it may be
used.  The same applies to my node number, and position in Fidonet.

 >
 >LDD> Amazing, isn't it?  Someone took her up on her challenge.  And that
 >LDD> just makes you livid!  And you even want to block distribution in
 > theLDD> existing channels.
 >
 >BS> Yes, because as I previously stated, should someone wish those
 > documents
 >BS> distributed, they should have been supplied to the ZEC1 for
 > distribution.
 >
 > Why?

      Because the ZEC1, and ONLY the ZEC1, has the right to hatch zone files
in Z1_REC.

 >
 >BS> It's quite obvious that you wish to bypass the official distribution
 >BS> channels to sponsor your own form of anarchy.
 >
 > How so? You're the one distributing outdated info. November 2000, eh?
 > Ouch!

      And when was that hatched?

 >
 >BS> And I, for one, am not prepared to cooperate, or be involved.
 >
 > Too busy looking for an illicit feed to the REG12 admin echo today, Bob?


      Not at all, you presume too much.

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

.