Subj : ERRORS in Route List! To : Carl Austin Bennett From : Ross Cassell Date : Thu May 10 2001 11:27 am Hello Carl! 09 May 01 21:39, you wrote to me: RC>> John tried the one thing he did best, to control something or RC>> make sure something was being done *HIS* way. CB> John wanted a routelst that could be used to create a valid end-to-end CB> route. Problem was, he made too much of a big stink over what "he wanted". RC>> One of the major concerns I had with the early portions of the RC>> route list war was to prevent the Z1B from exerting undue RC>> influence on a route list that is supposed to be neutral and if RC>> that meant butting heads with Dale and John, so be it. CB> I would've liked to see a more politically neutral list, but it looks CB> like it isn't going to happen. Foxy has been playing some very CB> political games with the top-level hub matrix and has threatened to do CB> so with Ruth's info as well. This TLH matrix infatuation y'all have is utterly amazing. Being a Top Level Mail mover has nothing to do perse with being in the matrix. RC>> John was posturing because he wasnt gonna get his way and RC>> evidenced by his departure, Dale was acting like GOD was gonna RC>> die and you all came onto the scene because you were afraid RC>> Eastern Canada was gonna become a territory of the USA. CB> The manner in which Janis, Foxy and others in your group managed to CB> harass John into leaving the network has gone over very badly; John's CB> been a highly capable mail mover for many years and he will most CB> definitely be missed. John wasnt harassed into doing nothing, he is a big boy and made the decision all by hisself. Here is your logic: A. John wants his way. B. We disagree with him C. John throws a tantrum D. We should acquiece to appease him. Is this correct? John ran into a fair amount of resistance in private arguments in the private Z1B_COORD echo, not only from myself. Had John gotten his way over the route list, I bet you a fair amount of money that he would still be in Fidonet. RC>> so much for neutrality, even with the name change its still not RC>> neutral, I pointed this out to Dale and he jumped on Monteith RC>> over it, although I doubt Monteith named it so. CB> I don't see Monteith playing political games with this; he just moves CB> the mail I didnt say he did, wrt the first alternate list, I am sure he was only doing what someone asked him to do, hence Dale shouldnt have jumped him. RC>> no NAB hub cares to use it. I suspect Dale will reuse to use RC>> portions CB> Dale routes down to the net level only, as did John. Why list all the node level routing crap? CB> This whole saga of listing paths to individual nodes was started by CB> Foxy (with the ZIN's) over John's objections. There are cases (such CB> as 1:284/47) where lack of one valid central inbound host in a net CB> causes some routing problems. Actually it was John *AND* my requests that added in the routing for the Zonegates, if you are gonna list the routing for 1/2 thru 1/6, include the other ZINS while you are at it, it would be good to know the correct path to the EK or the Snooze editor. == Ross http://www.the-estar.com:8080 ross@the-estar.com or rcassell@home.com ICQ = 5305939 .... R12B: The SLA Is Mother, The SLA Is Father. --- GoldED/W32 3.0.1 * Origin: The Eastern Star [Mail Hub] - 864.573.7069 (1:18/500) .