Subj : 1:10/345
To   : David Calafrancesco
From : Michael Grant
Date : Thu Dec 06 2001 12:28 am

Hello David.

06 Dec 01 00:24, you wrote to me:

 MG>>> Why don't you ask Richard?
 MB>> Because I now know where he connects thus excludes him as a
 MB>> possible source.

 MG>> Ah, bias, and predjudice. I figured as much. Nice of you to smear
 MG>> Richard's good name...

 DC> Methinks though doth protest too much.

 DC> There was absolutely no statement about Richard that was made here
 DC> that did anything other than comment on the fact that Richard's source
 DC> for the filegate files was a node who has already proven himself
 DC> capable of altering in-transit filegate traffic. Period. Richard is
 DC> more than welcome to continue using the services of that hub, but we
 DC> over here choose to put our connection where our convictions are and
 DC> connect elsewhere. Period.

You allude that Richard is untrustworthy because his uplink is untrustworthy. A 
clear ASSumption of guilt by association, which smears Richard's name.

 DC> I view every one of your comments on this thread as attempting
 DC> to incite some flame fest over nothing. Keep it up and you risk
 DC> waking the moderator.

What I'm attempting to do is wake you all up to the fact that just because a 
hub is connected to another hub, it doesn't mean that hub thinks the same as 
the other hub. Suppose you link to Richard and you have a concern about one 
particular file echo. If you raise this concern to Richard, who's to say he 
won't seek out an alternative link for that one file echo in order to alleviate 
your concerns?

But no, you'd all much rather lump whole groups of hubs into one big pile of 
those which you deem "untrustworthy"... It's this same sort of thinking that 
caused Brenda Donovan to be treated so unfairly by the then RC12.

--- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3
 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11)

.