|From||Lee Lofaso||2:203/2.0||Date Write||2018-06-22 02:47:02|
|To||Michiel van der Vlist||0:0/0.0||Date Arrived||2018-06-22 03:50:26|
|Subj||Keeping it private.|
BM>>> Yet there were members of Z2 who did vote
MvV>>> So you say. But where is the list of voters to confirm it?
BM>> Again, you use cliched symantics to justify your cause. Show me BM>where
MvdV> they didn't vote?
MvdV> That fact that you label it as a clichee does not invalidate it. You
MvdV> very well that in general proving a negative is impossible. It is you
MvdV> claimed there were votes from Z2. The onus of proof is on you.
It can be deduced, given the number of total votes cast, that
some sysops from Zone 2 voted. However, it cannot be proven or
independently verified that any sysops from Zone 2 voted "yea".
MvV>>>> So why did Z2 have to abide by the results if they never agreed
MvV>>>> to hold an election in the first place?
MvV>>> And your answer to that is?
BM>> Well, Lee has been preaching for who knows how long that the overall
BM>> good for 'Fidonet' is how the game should be played. Are you not a
BM>> part of Fidonet?
MvdV> I am. But Lee is not. he is a user. His opinions are just that: the
MvdV> of a user. I am not bound by Lee's "rules".
It makes no difference if an individual is, or is not, a FidoNet
sysop. Whether you or anybody else agrees or disagrees with whatever
opinions are stated (regardless of by whom) is up to them.
Expressing opinions that are unsupported and/or unsubstantiated can
raise questions, especially if nothing can be independently verified.
But that does not make an opinion false, or a lie. Less credible,
or hard to believe, perhaps. But not a lie. That takes real genius.
Refuting a statement somebody makes with facts that are clear to all
can sometimes be fun. Except to the somebody who made the false claim.
That is why Ward wet his shorts the other day. As well as Bill.
BM>> You see, none of the other three zones who accept P4
BM>> can assume responsibility for a lack of interest, desire or concerns
BM>> when it can to the vote. If Z2 was that strongly against it,
MvdV> Z2 was strongly against because P4 was incompatible with how things were
MvdV> done in Z2.
As noted in the Fidonews 6-22, 29 May 1989.
BM>> why did you just come out and vote it down?
MvdV> We did not have the numbers to do that.
Yes, you did. Zone 2 sysops held their own vote. At EUROCON III.
The vote was unaninimous. Imagine that. Not a single sysop in Zone 2
voting in favor of the Policy-4 proposal.
Ward is trying to sneak out of the forum by pretending EUROCON III
never took place, as he only was able to recall a hard disk throwing
contest at EUROCON IV. Which he apparently lost to some other sysop.
MvdV> Besides, why should we be forced to participate in an election when we
MvdV> agreed to decide the matter by a fidonet wide vote anyway?
The only vote that sysops from Zone 2 agreed on having was the
one held at EUROCON III. Unfortunately, you missed that event.
BM>> Maybe Z2 is to blame for having the current document because of Z2's
BM>> lack of initiative or concern.
MvdV> There certainly was no lack of concern!.
Only those who had cotton in their ears failed to hear the wailing.
BM>> As an old tv character once said, “Logic clearly dictates that the
BM>> needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
MvdV> That amounts to dictatorship of the majority. Ram it down the throat of
MvdV> majority even if it severely hurts them...
There are two types of tyrannies -
* tyranny of the minority, in which a minority persecutes the majority
* tyranny of the majority, in which a majority persecutes the minority
In 1989, a system-wide vote being forced upon all zones by the zone
that had the majority was clearly the case. The outcome of such an
election was the intended result. IOW, the vote itself was a fraud.
In 1787, Americans did things differently. Rather than have a
system-wide vote being imposed on all 13 zones, each zone was allowed
to have its own independent election in order to ratify the document.
It took time, and there were a few close calls, but eventually all
13 zones voted in favor, thus giving us the Constitution of the United
Now just imagine what would have happened had New York voted "nay".
Or if Vermont would have simply refused to hold a vote at all.
The only valid vote taken in regards to the Policy-4 proposal was
the vote taken by sysops in Zone 2 at EUROCON III.
BM>> ” Back then you may not have had the #'s but today you do in a general
BM>> election IF you can get it by the remaining ZCs. Your choice...
MvdV> It is too late and it does not matter any more. the damage is done. :-(
"Zone 2 Declaration of Independence" by Michiel van der Vlist
To be published in a future special edition of the Fidonews ...
BM>>>> being Fidonet is a "family" under democratic rule, z2 would have
BM>>>> to abide by the resulting vote whether it be yay or nay.
MvdV> Fidonet is not and never was a democracy.
Was it ever meant to be?
MvV>>>> Duh.... Z2 doesnt do it that way.
MvdV> That was a response to XXCarol writing the same with Z1 and Z2 reversed.
She used to be Z6 ...
BM>> You fail to understand the point. Z1 as a individaul entity of Fidonet
BM>> can control it's business as it sees fit. Just as Z2 can and has.
BM>> When dealing with a system wide decision, then ALL zones share the
MvdV> There is and never was an agreement to make a system wide decision the
MvdV> it was done.
Except by the powers-that-be within Zone 1.
BM>> Now, as I said, none of the other ZCs can take responsibility for Z2's
BM>> lack of effort. Who knows, if you got the #'s you could ahve upset the
BM>> apple cart but you didn't. Live with it.
MvdV> "Live with it"....
If Catalonia had voted in favor of seceding from Spain, then told
Spain to "Live with it", what do you think the response by Spain would
Now imagine the same if Spain had chosen to secede from Catalonia ...
MvdV> That is exactly the attitude that evokes feelings like "it was rammed
MvdV> our throat". Z2 was vehemently against it. The then ZC2 Henk Wevers made
MvdV> cristal clear. And he also explained why it was damaging for Z2. It was
MvdV> ignored and Z1 pushed it through by choosing "democracy" as a decision
MvdV> method so that needs of the minority could be overruled.
MvdV> "Live with it"....
Crimea left Ukraine to become part of Russia.
When the leader of Ukraine objected, what do you
think Vladimir Putin told him? "Live with it."
MvdV> Eventually we did. But at great cost and damage to the zone and fidonet
MvdV> general. The rigid geographical structure imposed by P4 was incompatible
MvdV> with the cost structure of the telephone network in many countries. We
MvdV> no free local calls and the cost of national and internationlal calls
MvdV> sky high and eh.. chaotic. P4 ruthlessly demolished the cost sharing and
MvdV> sponsoring that we had.
All good points. But you are still missing the boat.
MvdV> In Germany it led to a schism. There was "Fido classic" and "Fido new
MvdV> each with their own nodelist. In The Netherlands it lead to a seven year
MvdV> CSO war. The CSO war ended with Fido over IP when the cost of
MvdV> dropped from sky high to almost zero.
What was the result? How many sysops left Fidonet? Then came
other places for folks to congregate. With the advent of the internet
came social media blossoming like it could never have done otherwise.
MvdV> Yes, we eventually adapted and learned to live with P4.
That was your mistake. Power resides with individual sysops.
Not a small clique of sysops from one zone who want to control
all that is. You should have refused to recognize P4 as being
a valid policy, especially since it was "voted down unanimously"
by Zone 2 sysops at EUROCON III.
MvdV> But the pain it took is not forgotten. The throat still feels soar when
MvdV> someone opens up the old wounds... :(
Sometimes a sysop has to vomit in order to get rid of cyberjunk.
Our Nuts, Your Mouth
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)