Subj : 1:10/345
To   : Lesley-Dee Dylan
From : Michael Grant
Date : Thu Dec 06 2001 10:25 am

Hello Lesley-Dee.

06 Dec 01 12:54, you wrote to me:

 MG>> You allude that Richard is untrustworthy because his
 MG>> uplink is untrustworthy. A clear ASSumption of guilt by

 LD> Try reading what is said.  No one said that Richard was untrustworthy.
 LD> What was said was that his uplink has a history of altering the
 LD> in-transit feed.  If the feed is altered before it gets to Richard,
 LD> then it is still altered when it gets to Richard's downlinks.  If the
 LD> downlink wants an unaltered feed, the downlink has to feed from
 LD> someone other than Richard.

Perhaps Richard agrees with the altering; perhaps every other downlink of 
Richard's uplink also agrees with the altering; since as I contended earlier, 
the file that was moved out of the BACKBONE echo in many people's opinions did 
not belong there and was in effect a spamming of that file echo. If every 
downlink of Richard's uplink agrees with what the uplink does, that uplink is 
justified in what he does. You allude that that makes Richard's uplink 
untrustworthy; I see it as him listening to the concerns of his downlinks.

That /still/ doesn't mean that Richard won't accomodate a downlink of /his/ 
system's wishes, and seek out an alternate source for any given downlink to 
ensure his downlinks get what they want. No hub is bound to recieve /every/ 
fileecho from the same source; never have been; and a good hub will put his or 
her downlink's wishes ahead of his or her own. You find the hub guilty without 
even a trial, though; even while your contention of his uplink's supposed 
"guilt" is questionable at best; and because you don't like the hub's uplink, 
you won't even consider using that hub's services.

As I said, guilt by association. You remind me of racists who won't associate 
with a neighbor because they associate with persons of color.


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

.