Subj : alternate routing chart
To   : Bob Seaborn
From : Darrell Salter
Date : Tue Apr 17 2001 01:16 pm

Bob Seaborn wrote in a message to Carl Austin Bennett:

 > 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?

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

ROTFL! Oh please! I can't take much more.

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

 BS>       Whatever Carl, play your silly games.

Face it, Bob, you've been snookered big-time! It's been one fuckup after 
another from you. Add your lack of integrity to the mix and you should just 
shut up and try to cut your losses. Remember, Ross is here now to pick up the 
pieces for you.

 > Have you asked them all, or do you presume to speak for the Region now?

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

That's it. Trying to avoid answering any direct questions now would be a very 
good idea.

 > What official policy or document is this?

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

That's it. Trying to avoid answering any direct questions now would be a very 
good idea.

 >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.

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

In essence? ROTFL! 

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

 BS>       Not at all.

If you say so. :)

 > 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.

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

Hahahaha!

 >BS> distributed, they should have been supplied to the ZEC1 for
 > distribution.
 >
 > Why?

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

Wrong!

 >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!

 BS>       And when was that hatched?

You don't know? Good grief! So many titles, so little clue.

 >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?

 BS>       Not at all, you presume too much.

Suuuure, Bob. We believe you, really we do. :-) 

Darrell

darrell@sprk.com 
--- 
 * Origin: Sparky's (1:229/438)

.