Subj : 1:10/345 To : Matt Bedynek From : Michael Grant Date : Mon Dec 03 2001 12:38 am Hello Matt. 03 Dec 01 02:13, you wrote to me: MG>> According to the messages sent to Matt that Janis posted here, he MG>> was not treated unfairly. He does not have a right to connect to MG>> the top of the Filegate; no one does. You don't get preferential MG>> treatment just because you have more bandwidth than the next guy, MG>> or because you are part of an echomail moving organization. MB> You're missing the point. MG>> If Matt was unhappy, why didn't he seek a connection with another MG>> Filegate hub? MB> There are no reliable filegate hubs with descent bandwidth. MB> However, in order to satisfy your curiousity, I did send mail to MB> several of the other hubs listed in filegate's information file and MB> never recieved a response. MB> I gave up. Funny.. I recieve my files from Richard Dodsworth; he carries the full Filegate load, has decent bandwidth and delivers my files promptly. I've been very happy with his service. He's also not aligned with either the Z1B nor the NAB. Maybe you didn't look hard enough? MG>> If you ask me; Janis should have long ago appointed a FDN MG>> coordinator for the BACKBONE fileecho, then this rankor over MG>> hatching rights wouldn't have happened, because no Z1B /or/ NAB MG>> hubs would have had hatching rights. MB> She doesn't have the right to annex a fileecho. MB> Wake up and smell the shit your shoveling. The Filegate doesn't /have/ to annex it, the Filegate /owns/ it. If they decide to drop it tomorrow, *POOF*! it's gone. In fact, I'd prefer to see that happen rather than have to see this sh** flinging contest going on over it. Then the Z1B and NAB would actually /have/ to cooperate in order to get their backbone files distributed... --- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11) .