Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to STAN HARDEGREE:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

That statement is a lie, as is every denial you've made about hijacking ALL-POLITICS. I'm sure a bit of research can turn up at least a few other
lies (yyour claim to be moderator of ALL-POLITICS, to name just one) - and lots
of misrepresentations and misstatements. You really don't want to go there.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Email:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... The problem with a clash of civilizations is that a civilization loses... --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

03 Jan 11 05:44, BOB KLAHN wrote to MODERATOR:

Email:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you could
then identify the moderator.


R\%/itt

Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you
could then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that
witnessed your hijinks is aware of what you tried to do.

And they are aware that you are lying here. Your ignorance may
be correctable, but your choice to remain ignorant makes it a
lie.

Not to mention that Earl saved the netmails he got when
Thom's system notified him that somebody was trying to
register HIS echo is someone else's name (yours). You

Which does not change a thing, as you would know if you were not
so ignorant of how Fido works.

tried the same trick some time back with POL_INC, and Earl
has that netmail too. Had either echo *really* expired as
you claim, Thom's system would not have rejected your
attempt(s) to claim them.

And that is your ignorance. Thom's system works automatically,
the elist robot. The echo does not have to be in the last issued
Elist to be listed, but the next one. I told you before, look
in the elists of the time. He was not listed as moderator. He
was listed in the *NEXT* elist, not the last one. And you can't
see the next elist until it's published.

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo. You
should check it before spouting off on what you don't know.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to STAN HARDEGREE:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

That statement is a lie, as is every denial you've made
about hijacking ALL-POLITICS.

Everything I said about ALL-Politics is verifiable truth. Even
you accepted me as moderator for more than a year.

I'm sure a bit of research
can turn up at least a few other lies (yyour claim to be
moderator of ALL-POLITICS, to name just one) - and lots of misrepresentations and misstatements. You really don't
want to go there.

Yes, I do want to go there. If you can show a lie, do so. To
falsely accuse me makes you the liar.

Misstatements are not lies. Ask GW Bush if you don't believe
that. He is beloved of such as Earl, yet he admits to his
"mistatements", but denies he lied.

OH, and I allow that he was mislead, and really believed what he
said. Have for a long time.

Now, prove your attacks or stand proven a liar.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

As the rules are posted by the moderator, all you have to do is
check his nodelisting to know who it is.

ummm... and what about those rules posted by others who offer posting services?
my system posts rules and updates for several echos that are not mine so looking at the origin line will not tell you who the moderator is or how to contact them ;)

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

On 01-03-11, ROY WITT said to BOB KLAHN:

03 Jan 11 05:44, BOB KLAHN wrote to MODERATOR:

Email:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you could RW>then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.



---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

04 Jan 11 05:10, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to ROY WITT:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you
could then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got caught at
it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Kewl! The more he gets of that, the better.

R\%/itt

Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)

On 1/11/2011 6:25 AM, Bob Ackley wrote to Bob Klahn:

And that is your ignorance. Thom's system works automatically,
the elist robot. The echo does not have to be in the last issued Elist to be listed, but the next one. I told you before, look in the elists of the time. He was not listed as moderator. He was listed in the *NEXT* elist, not the last one. And you can't see the next elist until it's published.

Since that *NEXT* elist hadn't been published, how did you know the listing had expired?

Klahn is talking about the monthly report. He knows that it is just an accumulation of listings, and that an up-to-the-minute knowledge can be had
by simply looking at the echolist echo where updates are posted as they are processed. Or one can e-mail a query to the echolist-bot for an up-to-date knowledge of what is or is not listed. The monthly master report is just a convenience.

-----------------------------------------------

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo.

"Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org, (1:261/1500.0)
attempted to modify the record for area "ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password."

That was sent November 12, 2010. There was no list put out in October, but the September list has this entry:

"ALL-POLITICS
All Politics Conference
Placeholder
Status: Active
Origin: Group: Fido
Distribution: BACKBONE
Gateways:
Language:
# Nodes: N/A Volume: N/A Rules:
Flags: <Real Names Only>
Notes: /REAL
Moderators: Earl Croasmun, earlcroasmun@netscape.net
Last changed: 30-Jun-2010 by earlcroasmun@netscape.net, 1:261/1500, earlcroasmun@netscape.net"

----------------------

And that particular hijack attempt happened months after the listing, and
two months before it would have expired, so all of his ramblings on the
subject are just diversions.

But it really is amusing to see him act like he is being somehow betrayed
by you just because you don't follow him wilson-like in everything he says.
As is his history, he cannot just disagree with you. He has to try to
stifle your dissent (the whole "what happened to you?" line), attack you personally, and now resort to calling you a liar!

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to BOB ACKLEY:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it,
you could then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that
witnessed your hijinks is aware of what you tried to do.

And they are aware that you are lying here. Your ignorance may
be correctable, but your choice to remain ignorant makes it a
lie.

Not to mention that Earl saved the netmails he got when
Thom's system notified him that somebody was trying to
register HIS echo is someone else's name (yours). You

Which does not change a thing, as you would know if you were not so ignorant of how Fido works.

tried the same trick some time back with POL_INC, and Earl
has that netmail too. Had either echo *really* expired as
you claim, Thom's system would not have rejected your
attempt(s) to claim them.

And that is your ignorance. Thom's system works automatically,
the elist robot. The echo does not have to be in the last issued
Elist to be listed, but the next one. I told you before, look in the elists of the time. He was not listed as moderator. He was listed in
the *NEXT* elist, not the last one. And you can't see the next elist until it's published.

Since that *NEXT* elist hadn't been published, how did you know the listing
had expired?

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo. You
should check it before spouting off on what you don't know.

Let's take a big leap and assume for a moment that what you've posted here is really
true and not one of your delusions. Why then, did Thom's elist robot (a) reject your
attempt to list the echo and (b) warn Earl that you were trying to steal it? The only
answer I can think of is that the listing had *NOT* expired as you continue to claim.

When the elist entry for this echo did in fact expire, Earl was able to list it
in his
name with no problem, and Alan Hess later thanked him for picking it up.

Just in case you missed this post to me:

-----------------------------------------------

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo.

"Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org, (1:261/1500.0)
attempted to modify the record for area "ALL-POLITICS", but provided the
wrong password."

That was sent November 12, 2010. There was no list put out in October, but
the September list has this entry:

"ALL-POLITICS
All Politics Conference
Placeholder
Status: Active
Origin: Group: Fido
Distribution: BACKBONE
Gateways:
Language:
# Nodes: N/A Volume: N/A Rules:
Flags: <Real Names Only>
Notes: /REAL
Moderators: Earl Croasmun, earlcroasmun@netscape.net
Last changed: 30-Jun-2010 by earlcroasmun@netscape.net, 1:261/1500, earlcroasmun@netscape.net"

----------------------

And you claim that *I'M* lying?


--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to BOB ACKLEY:

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to STAN HARDEGREE:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

That statement is a lie, as is every denial you've made
about hijacking ALL-POLITICS.

Everything I said about ALL-Politics is verifiable truth. Even
you accepted me as moderator for more than a year.

I'm sure a bit of research
can turn up at least a few other lies (yyour claim to be
moderator of ALL-POLITICS, to name just one) - and lots of
misrepresentations and misstatements. You really don't
want to go there.

Yes, I do want to go there. If you can show a lie, do so. To
falsely accuse me makes you the liar.

Misstatements are not lies. Ask GW Bush if you don't believe
that. He is beloved of such as Earl, yet he admits to his
"mistatements", but denies he lied.

OH, and I allow that he was mislead, and really believed what he
said. Have for a long time.

Now, prove your attacks or stand proven a liar.

Only in your tiny, deluded mind.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

10 Jan 11 12:37, mark lewis wrote to Roy Witt:

As the rules are posted by the moderator, all you have to do is
check his nodelisting to know who it is.

ummm... and what about those rules posted by others who offer posting services? my system posts rules and updates for several echos that
are not mine so looking at the origin line will not tell you who the moderator is or how to contact them ;)

I suppose your rules postings don't include the name of the moderator
or a means of communicating with them by netmail or email. Been there too
and know the ins and outs of posting rules for others.

R\%/itt

Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)

For anyone who wants to check the records on this, old echolists
can be downloaded from www.filegate.net/echolist/

RE: Earl's accusations.

At that time I was recognized as moderator of all politics by
any name you want to give it by everyone in this discussion.
Therefore, I could not have tried to hijack an echo for which
everyone recognized me as the moderator.

I do, however, have the msgs from 1-18-2010 to 1-19-2010
regarding the echolist and Ross Cassell trying to pirate the
Debate echo, and Earl Crosmun trying to pirate the All politics
echo.

Now why would Earl try to pirate the all politics echo if he
thought he was the moderator?

At that time there was a problem with the date in the echolist
robot, and that caused the echos listed within a certain time
frame to be delisted.

Ross and Earl jumped on that. Which is exactly what they accused
Lee Lafaso of doing. The only difference being, Roger had failed
to relist the echo, and we never knew he had listed it in the
first place.

In this case, Ross and Earl made a grab, that was reversed when
the tech problem was discovered and I sent a copy of the email
showing the echo was relisted.

IOW, they were doing what they accuse me of doing.

Since I was the recognized moderator of all pol, by whatever
name you want to give it, Earl's try this time is incredibly
lame.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

Subject: Hijack Warning
From: Echolist <echolist@fidonet.us>
To: earlcroasmun <earlcroasmun@netscape.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2010 9:05 am

Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org,
(1:261/1500.0) attempted to modify the record for area
"ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com
(1:124/311)

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Republicans-united by feelings of Victimhood, and obsessed with Revenge. --- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Returning to this. Note that now that I have the date in
question I presented the URL to get the echolists that back up
my part completely.

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to TIM RICHARDSON:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you
could then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that

...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... All answers are questioned in this echo.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to STAN HARDEGREE:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

That statement is a lie, as is every denial you've made
about hijacking ALL-POLITICS. I'm sure a bit of research
can turn up at least a few other lies (yyour claim to be
moderator of ALL-POLITICS, to name just one) - and lots of misrepresentations and misstatements. You really don't
want to go there.

Not only is your response now proven a lie, per my previous msg,
but I also have the emails from when Earl tried to hijack All
Politics when the echo robot had a date glitch. At which time
Earl was *NOT* listed as moderator of all-pol. And Ross tried to
hijack Debate.

When you are ignorant, you are in error. When you chose to
remain ignorant you lie.

...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Ethics are situational. Grammar and spelling are absolutes.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

...

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that
witnessed your hijinks is aware of what you tried to do.

And they are aware that you are lying here. Your ignorance may
be correctable, but your choice to remain ignorant makes it a
lie.

Not to mention that Earl saved the netmails he got when
Thom's system notified him that somebody was trying to
register HIS echo is someone else's name (yours). You

Which does not change a thing, as you would know if you were not so
ignorant of how Fido works.

tried the same trick some time back with POL_INC, and Earl
has that netmail too. Had either echo *really* expired as
you claim, Thom's system would not have rejected your
attempt(s) to claim them.

And that is your ignorance. Thom's system works automatically,
the elist robot. The echo does not have to be in the last issued
Elist to be listed, but the next one. I told you before, look in the
elists of the time. He was not listed as moderator. He was listed in
the *NEXT* elist, not the last one. And you can't see the next elist
until it's published.

Since that *NEXT* elist hadn't been published, how did you
know the listing had expired?

Because it was not in the *LAST* elist.

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo. You
should check it before spouting off on what you don't know.

Let's take a big leap and assume for a moment that what
you've posted here is really
true and not one of your delusions. Why then, did Thom's
elist robot (a) reject your
attempt to list the echo and (b) warn Earl that you were
trying to steal it? The only
answer I can think of is that the listing had *NOT* expired
as you continue to claim.

Try to think. You used to be able to do that. He relisted it
*BETWEEN* elist releases. So the elist that was in distribution
showed it had expired. The Robot does not read that, but it's
own records.

When the elist entry for this echo did in fact expire, Earl
was able to list it in his
name with no problem, and Alan Hess later thanked him for
picking it up.

And just how do you know that? Oh, and why did he twist the
rules so badly, if he picked it up for Alan?

Just in case you missed this post to me:

Since it would be in a just downloaded packet, I have not seen
it yet. I checked my emails both Fidotel and my regular home
email and I do not find any mod upd email in that part of Nov
2010 so I can't check it.

Notice that Ross did not start his game until Dec 2010. So, I
would have no reason to consider it before then. Reread Ross'
msg on that.

So, whatever happened I filed to relist *MY* echo as recognized
by every one including you. I was not trying to list an echo,
but renew my echo. If that happened.

-----------------------------------------------

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo.

"Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org,
(1:261/1500.0) attempted to modify the record for area
"ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password."

That was sent November 12, 2010. There was no list put out
in October, but the September list has this entry:

"ALL-POLITICS
All Politics Conference

And you claim that *I'M* lying?

Yes. And note that Earl posted one from much earlier.

And note that I did not have to check the echolist for all
politics since I was recognized as the moderator by everyone
until Ross jumped in to play his games.

At that time no one considered Earl the moderator. Not even you.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Have you been so beaten down by the right wingers you have
joined them?

...

Now, prove your attacks or stand proven a liar.

Only in your tiny, deluded mind.

Funny, that's how they talked about you not so long ago.

FORUM: CROSSFIRE HOST: DOCS
DATE: Dec-20-07 6:49am MSG: 30622
FROM: ED HULETT
TO: BOB ACKLEY
SUBJECT: Economy Strong Here

Bob Ackley -> BOB KLAHN wrote:

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to BOB ACKLEY:

Didn't you tell someone in another echo that anyone not a right wing extremist is driven out of here?

I'll save you the trouble of checking your archives; Yes you did.

Ed


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Jesus loves you - but then again, so does Barney.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to ALL:

For anyone who wants to check the records on this, old echolists can
be downloaded from www.filegate.net/echolist/

RE: Earl's accusations.

At that time I was recognized as moderator of all politics by
any name you want to give it by everyone in this discussion.

He *claimed* to be the moderator, and nobody bothered to check the ELIST. That's why he was "accepted."

Therefore, I could not have tried to hijack an echo for which
everyone recognized me as the moderator.

Sure he could. In order to BE the moderator one has to be listed as such, otherwise it's just an unsubstanmtiated CLAIM. That he tried to list it in
his own name is a fact, as is the fact that it was rejected and the *real* moderator was notified of the hijack attempt. It is further a fact that he did successfully list himself as moderator of "ALL POLITICS" and "ALL_POLITICS,"
neither of which is backboned.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to BOB ACKLEY:

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to STAN HARDEGREE:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

That statement is a lie, as is every denial you've made
about hijacking ALL-POLITICS. I'm sure a bit of research
can turn up at least a few other lies (yyour claim to be
moderator of ALL-POLITICS, to name just one) - and lots of
misrepresentations and misstatements. You really don't
want to go there.

Not only is your response now proven a lie, per my previous msg, but
I also have the emails from when Earl tried to hijack All Politics
when the echo robot had a date glitch. At which time Earl was *NOT* listed as moderator of all-pol. And Ross tried to hijack Debate.

When you are ignorant, you are in error. When you chose to
remain ignorant you lie.

I can't argue with that last statement. However, I choose to go by established facts, posted here and elsewhere. Those facts are (1) your attempt to list the echo in your own name was rejected; and (2) the *real* moderator of the echo was notified of your attempt to do so. I've never denied that you CLAIMED to be the moderator of ALL-POLITICS, and I never bothered to check to see if that CLAIM was true (and apparently neither did anybody else). It was later brought to our attention that your CLAIM was FALSE. All of the preceding are established
facts.

Even when presented with established facts you continue to claim you did not attempt to steal the echo. You're beating a dead horse.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to BOB ACKLEY:

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that
witnessed your hijinks is aware of what you tried to do.

And they are aware that you are lying here. Your ignorance may
be correctable, but your choice to remain ignorant makes it a
lie.

Not to mention that Earl saved the netmails he got when
Thom's system notified him that somebody was trying to
register HIS echo is someone else's name (yours). You

Which does not change a thing, as you would know if you were not
so ignorant of how Fido works.

tried the same trick some time back with POL_INC, and Earl
has that netmail too. Had either echo *really* expired as
you claim, Thom's system would not have rejected your
attempt(s) to claim them.

And that is your ignorance. Thom's system works automatically,
the elist robot. The echo does not have to be in the last issued
Elist to be listed, but the next one. I told you before, look in
the elists of the time. He was not listed as moderator. He was
listed in the *NEXT* elist, not the last one. And you can't see
the next elist until it's published.

Since that *NEXT* elist hadn't been published, how did you
know the listing had expired?

Because it was not in the *LAST* elist.

You just finished claiming that watever was or wasn't in the *LAST* elist
was irrelevant. Note that Earl posted the ALL-POLITICS entry from the elist preceding your hijack attempt, and Earl is listed as moderator.

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo. You
should check it before spouting off on what you don't know.

Let's take a big leap and assume for a moment that what
you've posted here is really
true and not one of your delusions. Why then, did Thom's
elist robot (a) reject your
attempt to list the echo and (b) warn Earl that you were
trying to steal it? The only
answer I can think of is that the listing had *NOT* expired
as you continue to claim.

Try to think. You used to be able to do that. He relisted it
*BETWEEN* elist releases. So the elist that was in distribution
showed it had expired. The Robot does not read that, but it's
own records.

When the elist entry for this echo did in fact expire, Earl
was able to list it in his
name with no problem, and Alan Hess later thanked him for
picking it up.

And just how do you know that? Oh, and why did he twist the
rules so badly, if he picked it up for Alan?

Earl said that he did. As to why you'll have to ask Earl.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Seriously, can ANYONE figure out WHO Klahn is trying to lie to? The lies
are getting to sound like self-delusion. Everyone else can see right
through them. Here he takes a discussion of his documented hijacking
attempt of November 2010, and suddenly jumps back in time by ten months to
say things that are both irrelevant and untrue!

On 1/11/2011 9:44 PM, Bob Klahn wrote to All:

I do, however, have the msgs from 1-18-2010 to 1-19-2010
regarding the echolist and Ross Cassell trying to pirate the
Debate echo, and Earl Crosmun trying to pirate the All politics
echo.

There was no pirating, so there could be no "msgs" about piracy. But he
does not have the "msgs" of 1-6-2010 and 1-7-2010 between Ross and myself.
In those "msgs" I made it clear that I had no desire to list the DEBATE
echo, since that was the one echo that Klahn was the legitimate moderator
of. Ross said that he was going to go ahead and list DEBATE, specifically
to keep it as a sanctuary for Klahn and friends, lest some one else try to redirect it. No "piracy" at all. Quite the opposite. Klahn is unaware of that exchange, but his ignorance doesn't prevent him from making up untruths.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

Subject: Hijack Warning
From: Echolist <echolist@fidonet.us>
To: earlcroasmun <earlcroasmun@netscape.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2010 9:05 am

Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org,
(1:261/1500.0) attempted to modify the record for area
"ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password.

Lest anyone forget the point, Klahn called Tim a "liar" for simply saying
what is established and documented fact. And lest anyone forget, KLAHN's opinion is that when someone falsely ACCUSES someone of lying, that
accusation is therefore automatically a "lie." By Klahn's definition,
Klahn is lying. Again.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

This just keeps getting more and more strange. Klahn tells Ackley that he checks the list before attempting to list an echo. If he had actually done that in November 2010, he would have seen (a) that he was not the moderator
of "All-Politics," (b) that he had never been the moderator of
"All-Politics," and (c) that for nearly a full year I had been the
moderator of "All-Politics."

So for starters, we know that his statement about checking the list is demonstrably false. Completely. No question. But instead of admitting it when caught, he compounds it by now claiming that in November 2010 he was
just trying to "renew" his echo. He cannot renew something that he never
had! And one glance at any one of a number of monthly lists would have informed him of that fact! He just gets deeper and deeper.

On 1/11/2011 11:54 PM, Bob Klahn wrote to Bob Ackley:

So, whatever happened I filed to relist *MY* echo as recognized
by every one including you. I was not trying to list an echo,
but renew my echo. If that happened.

-----------------------------------------------

I checked the elist before attempting to list an echo.

"Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org,
(1:261/1500.0) attempted to modify the record for area
"ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password."

That was sent November 12, 2010. There was no list put out
in October, but the September list has this entry:

"ALL-POLITICS
All Politics Conference

And you claim that *I'M* lying?

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Email:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read
it, you could then identify the moderator.

Or I could use the echolist, which I did. Which doesn't count
as identifying the moderator in the echo rules.

It says contact the moderator but doesn't say how.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you could RW>>then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

--- Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

06 Jan 11 19:30, BOB KLAHN wrote to ROY WITT:

Email:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read
it, you could then identify the moderator.

Or I could use the echolist, which I did.

As the rules are posted by the moderator, all you have to do is check his nodelisting to know who it is.

Which doesn't count as identifying the moderator in the echo rules.

Once you know the name/node-number of the moderator, all you have to do is write him a netmail, or visit his website (URL is also included in the
rules).

It says contact the moderator but doesn't say how.

I'll bet it does.

R\%/itt

Fox News was not used as a source for information in this message!

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to TIM RICHARDSON:

No moderator name entered. No moderator identified.

Perhaps if you had a Fidonet nodelist and were able to read it, you
could then identify the moderator.

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

He's telling the absolute truth, Klahn. Everybody that witnessed your
hijinks is aware of what you tried to do. Not to mention that Earl
saved the netmails he got when Thom's system notified him that somebody
was trying to register HIS echo is someone else's name (yours). You tried
the same trick some time back with POL_INC, and Earl has that netmail
too. Had either echo *really* expired as you claim, Thom's system would
not have rejected your attempt(s) to claim them.

--- FleetStreet 1.19+
* Origin: Bob's Boneyard, Emerson, Iowa (1:300/3)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

On 1/7/2011 12:25 AM, Bob Klahn wrote to Tim Richardson:

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

Subject: Hijack Warning
From: Echolist <echolist@fidonet.us>
To: earlcroasmun <earlcroasmun@netscape.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2010 9:05 am

Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org, (1:261/1500.0) attempted to modify the record for area "ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

For all the years I have known him, I have never known Tim
Richardson to lie. You, on the other hand....

You have never shown one single lie from me.

OTOH, when you claimed to have retired from the Army...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Klahn just made an attempt to hijack another echo and got
caught at it. He's now licking his wounds in other echoes.

Richardson is lying.

Subject: Hijack Warning
From: Echolist <echolist@fidonet.us>
To: earlcroasmun <earlcroasmun@netscape.net>
Date: Fri, Nov 12, 2010 9:05 am

Warning: bob.klahn@fidotel.com, bob.klahn@sev.org, (1:261/1500.0) attempted to
modify the record for area "ALL-POLITICS", but provided the wrong password.

Whoops.

--- Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

...

As the rules are posted by the moderator, all you have to
do is check his nodelisting to know who it is.

Which doesn't count as identifying the moderator in the echo rules.

Once you know the name/node-number of the moderator, all
you have to do is write him a netmail, or visit his website
(URL is also included in the rules).

BK>> Which doesn't count as identifying the moderator in the echo rules.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Get off the nuclear weapon ... now ...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Replying to a message of BOB KLAHN to ALL:

For anyone who wants to check the records on this, old echolists can
be downloaded from www.filegate.net/echolist/

RE: Earl's accusations.

At that time I was recognized as moderator of all politics by
any name you want to give it by everyone in this discussion.

He *claimed* to be the moderator, and nobody bothered to
check the ELIST. That's why he was "accepted."

The acceptance is the key. And even you cannot deny the echo was
dead, and unlisted, and I revived it.

Therefore, I could not have tried to hijack an echo for which
everyone recognized me as the moderator.

Sure he could. In order to BE the moderator one has to be
listed as such, otherwise it's just an unsubstanmtiated

However, if someone is believed by *EVERYONE* using the echo,
then for a person to claim to be the moderator is *NOT* a lie.

CLAIM. That he tried to list it in his own name is a fact,
as is the fact that it was rejected and the *real*
moderator was notified of the hijack attempt. It is

Which has zero to do with the above. Esp since even the person
*YOU* call the real moderator accepted me as the moderator.

further a fact that he did successfully list himself as
moderator of "ALL POLITICS" and "ALL_POLITICS," neither of
which is backboned.

Yet you and everyone else, including Earl Croasmun and Ross
Cassell accepted me as the moderator.

Final proof of which is that the two of them tried to take over
my echos when the echo robot had a glitch and delisted them. If
they did not accept me as moderator then that attempt would have
been moot.

The fact that when the robot was fixed I was relisted as
moderator, and everyone, including them and you, accepted me as
moderator is sufficient to prove my honesty in this entire
episode.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Seriously, can ANYONE figure out WHO Klahn is trying to lie
to? The lies are getting to sound like self-delusion.
Everyone else can see right through them. Here he takes a
discussion of his documented hijacking attempt of November
2010, and suddenly jumps back in time by ten months to say
things that are both irrelevant and untrue!

Earl Croasmun has a history of diverting, diverging and
digressing to try to score his points.

So here it is, a challenge to Earl and everyone else.

Can you deny that the echo was unlisted and dead before I
revived it?

Can you deny that I revived it?

Can you deny that *YOU* accepted me as the legitimate moderator
of the echo?

Can you show any evidence of any condition at that time by which
anyone could rationally claim I was not accepted by *EVERY*
poster as the legitimate moderator of the echo.

Can you show anyone making a claim that I was not the legitimate
moderator of the echo before Ross started his little coup?

In view of the above, can you make any case whatsoever that I
was in anyway dishonest in claiming to be the moderator of the
echo?

If you can't make that claim, then Bob Ackley's constant
accusations against me are lies.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

This just keeps getting more and more strange. Klahn tells
Ackley that he checks the list before attempting to list an
echo. If he had actually done that in November 2010, he
would have seen (a) that he was not the moderator of
"All-Politics," (b) that he had never been the moderator of "All-Politics," and (c) that for nearly a full year I had
been the moderator of "All-Politics."

Earl is spouting his usual deception.

I would not see a need to check the echolist for an echo for
which not only I, but also Earl Croasmun, believed I was the
moderator.

Earl did not elist the echo until a full year after I revived
it. Which makes his listing it a clear attempt to hijack the
echo. The proof of which is not only the claims that Lee tried
to hijack coffee_klatch with much less evidence, but that he did
try to list the echo when the echolist robot malfunctioned.

The fact that he did exactly zip for a full year to take
control of an echo he now claims I was not the legitimate
moderator of is all the evidence needed to convince any rational
person his accusations are false.

All irrational people are free to disagree.

moderator of.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Can you deny that *YOU* accepted me as the legitimate moderator

By this lard ass's logic, if someone is impersonating a cop, he is a cop.

Klan's delusional. And he's busted.

--- Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6001.18416
* Origin: Fidonet Via Newsreader - http://www.easternstar.info (1:123/789.0)

Can you deny that *YOU* accepted me as the legitimate moderator

By this lard ass's logic, if someone is impersonating a cop, he is a cop. Klan's delusional. And he's busted.

He tried to become the moderator by grabbing the listing back in November.
An amusing side-note: his hijack attempt came right after he attempted to
ban John Massey and Tim Richardson back in November. I wonder if he tried
to get someone's feed cut, and got told by someone that he didn't have that power!

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time, and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot recall as having any contact with me over the years in fidonet) popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting. In light of the whoppers Klahn has posted in the open, it is
hard to predict how far he would stray from the facts when hiding in back-channels!


--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:124/311)

Can you deny that *YOU* accepted me as the legitimate moderator

By this lard ass's logic, if someone is impersonating a
cop, he is a cop.

Even you, downlow, recognized me as moderator. Even Croasmun
did.

You're busted.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Can you deny that *YOU* accepted me as the legitimate moderator

...

He tried to become the moderator by grabbing the listing
back in November. An amusing side-note: his hijack attempt
came right after he attempted to ban John Massey and Tim
Richardson back in November. I wonder if he tried to get
someone's feed cut, and got told by someone that he didn't
have that power!

It was not necessary to ask for any feed cut. Tim posts through
Docsplace. Ed would cut on request without checking. He has
shown that before. John I don't recall. Note that neither
challenged my authority, just were defiant of it.

Note also that Earl is using speculation to cast doubt on my
authority that even he did not deny at that time.

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time,
and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot
recall as having any contact with me over the years in
fidonet) popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of
ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was
going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting.

Since I was aware of any stir either, just what did he say? And
why would Mark Lewis mention it to you and not me?

In light of the whoppers Klahn has posted in the open, it
is hard to predict how far he would stray from the facts
when hiding in back-channels!

Since every single thing I have posted on this has been the
truth, and known to Earl and everyone else as the truth, Earl is
spewing more speculation to hide the facts one more time.

This has been Earl's pattern for a very long time.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

And you claim that *I'M* lying?

one must also understand that just because an echotag is expired, it is still in the list for a random amount of time after the expiration specifically to prevent timed take-overs based on the expirations... it used to be a race between bots as soon as the expiration hit to see who could beat the original owner's bot to the draw... the random removal from the database handles that quite well while still allowing the original owner to renew the listing up until such time as the expired listing is actually removed from the database...

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

In order to BE the moderator one has to be listed as such,

this too is false... show me an echo of roy witt's that is listed in the elist and in so doing, show me where he is listed as the moderator...

roy is not the only one who has told the elist to shove it where the sun don't shine... how many Z2 echos can you find in the elist?? do they have moderators or no??

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time,
and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot
recall as having any contact with me over the years in
fidonet)

earl has a short memory... i've participated in threads that he has been in several times...

popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of
ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was
going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting.

Since I was aware of any stir either, just what did he say? And
why would Mark Lewis mention it to you and not me?

i posted directly in the elist echo in reply to earl's message that he posted in there concerning the controversy... it was then that i pointed out to other readers the stir that was getting started and is what you guys are still fighting about now...

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time,
and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot
recall as having any contact with me over the years in
fidonet) popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of
ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was
going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting.

Since I was aware of any stir either, just what did he say? And
why would Mark Lewis mention it to you and not me?

here is the message i posted to earl... if you want to see the whole thread, you can pull them from my system which retains at least the last 365 days of posts in each area and 730 days in many of the areas i carry...

[QUOTE]
Area : EchoList Access Conference
Date : Wed Dec 15, 22:43 snt loc
From : mark lewis 1:3634/12
To : EARL CROASMUN
Subj : For the record... ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

As present I am unable to process Updates because my ISP has some issue
with connectivity.

Sitting in Thom's queue of updates waiting to be processed are the listings of:

POLITICS
ALL-POLITICS
POL_DISORDER
POL_INC

I mention this because I have gotten more "hijack warnings" than
usual recently.

well, let's also mention the fact that there's a bit of a "stir" going on with at least one of these that may have someone else listed as the moderator... if one is to be truthful, one should always be truthful... especially when it comes
from having someone else tell "you" that something is going on that "you" are apparently unaware of...

)\/(ark

-!-
# Origin: (1:3634/12)
[/QUOTE]

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Hello mark!

21 Jan 11 17:45, you wrote to Bob Ackley:

::DISCLAIMER::

You are not being moderated perse..

In order to BE the moderator one has to be listed as such,

this too is false... show me an echo of roy witt's that is listed in
the elist and in so doing, show me where he is listed as the
moderator...

Irrelevant, the echolist and how it gets viewed goes beyond the scope of how Roy, Klahn, Lofaso view it personally.

Remember this, something is always your friend until it becomes either a hindrance to ones agenda or outright enemy. Therefore the echolist can be seen by others in the same fashion.

In the case of all-politics, the difference is that what Klahn *HAD* listed were variants based on a underscore and a space, not the boned one, containing a hyphen. I do not personally read the echolist on a daily basis and use it only as a matter of reference, especially since I am the one who maintains the backbone files. But I did assume that Klahn had his bases covered in the echolist dept, up until it was pointed out to me.

Had this echo for all this time til present, not been in the echolist, there could be made a strong case *for* Klahn. But there is a paper trail and existing record that shows that Klahn is not the listed moderator of record.

For purposes of the North American Backbone, Bob Klahn is *not* the moderator of record for ALL-POLITICS, he would be for ALL_POLITICS, should he make a formal request for the backbone to transport it. However I would hope he would spare people the confusion by not doing so, being that he has since retooled another echo (CONTROVERIAL) to do for him what he was using ALL-POLITICS for. It was a pain in the ass when we had identical sets of echoes for MACS with a hypen and a underscore were the only distinction other than one tin pot moderator was replaced by another.

Furthermore Klahn had been making the case that "well you recognized me as moderator for x months".... BULLSHIT defense.. If a person put on the uniform of a beat cop on main street and seemingly performed the duties of one and had all the store owners convinced, when the deception is discovered, that doesnt make the impersonator a real cop because everyone initially believed him to be one.

Now do I believe Klahn set out to deliberately deceive, probably not, but the lack of follow-up on his part, is in fact his own failing and said failure cannot be assigned to someone else..

With the repurposing of another echo, it would seem that Klahn has resolved the
issue and dealt with any future technicalities.

He only wanted an echo to get the last word in on messages originating from areas he and perhaps others are banned from. A highly suspect concept considering that Klahn is assuming that people he would respond to will take and read that echo.

With all this said...

It is entirely a moot point as to the did not/did to or he said this/he didnt say this part of the argument, spilt milk, water under the bridge, and all that
stuff.

Everyone has until SUNDAY 01/23/11 23:59 hours to get this out of their systems
before it becomes off topic here, we will also know who goes to the super bowl by that time.

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us

We hoped and we got change!

... WORK HARDER! Millions on welfare depend on it.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121
* Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time,
and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot
recall as having any contact with me over the years in
fidonet)

earl has a short memory... i've participated in threads
that he has been in several times...

I believe Earl has a convenient memory.

popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of
ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was
going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting.

Since I was aware of any stir either, just what did he say? And
why would Mark Lewis mention it to you and not me?

i posted directly in the elist echo in reply to earl's
message that he posted in there concerning the
controversy... it was then that i pointed out to other
readers the stir that was getting started and is what you
guys are still fighting about now...

Yet I am unaware of any such stir.

)\/(ark

* Origin: (1:3634/12)

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Oh no! The creationists are mutating!
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

...

Now do I believe Klahn set out to deliberately deceive,
probably not, but the lack of follow-up on his part, is in
fact his own failing and said failure cannot be assigned to
someone else..

I do say you and Earl did set out to deceive. He did not elist
the echo with the grammatical change until after his failed
attempt to hijack the All Politics echo.

...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Trust in Allah--but tie your camel tight! Persian Proverb.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Doc's Place BBS Fido Since 1991 docsplace.tzo.com (1:123/140)

Mark Lewis showed up in the echo at about that same time,
and shortly after that the same Mark Lewis (who I cannot
recall as having any contact with me over the years in
fidonet)

earl has a short memory... i've participated in threads
that he has been in several times...

I believe Earl has a convenient memory.

i can maybe accept that...

popped up in the ECHOLIST echo to tell me that
there was a "stir" going on over the listing of
ALL-POLITICS and that I was "unaware" of the stir that was
going on behind the scenes. I'll bet it was interesting.

Since I was aware of any stir either, just what did he say? And
why would Mark Lewis mention it to you and not me?

i posted directly in the elist echo in reply to earl's
message that he posted in there concerning the
controversy... it was then that i pointed out to other
readers the stir that was getting started and is what you
guys are still fighting about now...

Yet I am unaware of any such stir.

this is a continuation of said stir... that stir being the whole mess associated with the echo in question...

)\/(ark


* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Hello mark!

26 Jan 11 18:48, you wrote to BOB KLAHN:

this is a continuation of said stir... that stir being the whole mess associated with the echo in question...

and said stir is off topic here.

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us

We hoped and we got change!

... Want to be and do evil, become a Democrat.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20060121
* Origin: The Eastern Star - Spartanburg, SC USA (1:123/456)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)

On 12-01-11, MODERATOR said to ALL:

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discu

(snip!)


I seem to recall this echo was created to be used for pretty heavy-handed political discussions, not to mention being meant to post up stuff from echoes where the poster was either forbidden to post that sort of stuff, or was
banned outright.


As per the `Moderator', this echo has now become `Namby Pamby Land'-Light!


Fido is indeed dying! Killed by a heavy-handed Moderator.





---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)

Welcome To The CROSSFIRE Echo
=============================

[RULES] Last Revised: 05/08/2009

The CROSSFIRE echo is meant for the discussion of political, social and everyday concerns that affect society at large.

The topic matter of this echo is not one to be taken lightly, it is not
for example as easy to discuss as lets say a shared hobby, like ham radio, hunting and fishing, stamp collecting or wood carving. People whom discuss
the topic matter can be laid back all the way up to extremely passionate.

[Religion]

Political discussions often touch on or are affected by religion, the CROSSFIRE echo is not a safe haven for those with faith or those
claiming to be without faith. Neither is it a safe haven for those whom
fall onto any one spot of the political idealogical spectrum.

Discussion of religion is not forbidden here, but it should not be the sole constituent of your debates. Nor should message threads be started in
which religion is the sole topic and it starts to dominate the echo.

If your intention is to **only** discuss religion be it for or against
then you might want to seek out another avenue, such as HOLYSMOKE or EDGE_ONLINE.

Religion is often and sometimes best kept as a private matter between the individual and their GOD, Church, preacher and family. No one
practices the same, much less perfectly if at all.

[Religious Preaching]

If you are including Quotes from the Bible in your discussions, then
you are preaching, this is not a religious echo and it is not allowed.
Please take and initiate those discussions elsewhere.

[Names]

Aliases/assumed names, handles are forbidden.

For purposes of this echo, the first and last name as presented in the
message headers are the acceptable names to refer to others.

Exceptions might be the normal dimunitive of some names such as but not limited to:

Robert: Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby
Daniel: Dan, Danny
Richard: Rick, Dick, Ricky

So long as they are not used for demeaning purposes.

[Imported Content]

If you post a article of interest from elsewhere, the internet et al, do
not post without including or following it with some commentary and make
sure the source gets properly creditted. Posting the source URL is a
very good idea and in many cases preferable over posting the (entire)
article itself.

When posting Internet URL's if it cant fit on one line, try using one of
the URL services, like Tinyurl.

When posting articles, please make sure you format or reformat it so its
easily digestible by every ones readers.

When using a source, especially from the Internet, to support or make a
point, please keep in mind that one can find content anywhere on the
Internet to support their own point, position or idealogy. Dont expect
that any reference you cite to be taken as the gospel truth, remember
this hard truth, your opponent can also cite content to refute the point
you tried to make or to simply support his/her own point or position.

[Message Quoting]

When replying to messages in the open echo, you should quote back those
parts of the original message to remind the person and the other echo participants of what you are replying to. Please do not over-quote
messages if you are not addressing every point the original poster made.

*DO NOT* change the wording of any quoted text that you decide to include
in your reply to make it appear that the original author said something
that s/he did not..

BE VERY MINDFUL of nested message quotes, how various mail readers or
online editors do it, vary. On a routine basis, you will encounter a
message you want to reply to in which it contains quoted message text
from someone other than the person you are replying to said, especially
in a message thread that has had alot of life. If at all possible, unless
doing so would destroy context or render your reply meaningless, try to
not include nested quotes in your responses.

What you post versus what someone replies to, is beyond your control,
this means that no one is required to address every single point that
you might bring out in your messages. If you talked about A, B and C and someone only replied about B, then so be it. Get over it and get over yourself. No persons prose or point of view is so golden as to require
100% attention. No one is "running away" if they choose to not address everything you say.

[Taglines And Signature Lines]

Echo participants are not to be mocked in, by or otherwise be the
subject matter conveyed via taglines or header/signature/footer lines.

[Carbon Copying and Privacy]

Posting a identical message to multiple recipients in the open echo is forbidden. This wastes bandwidth and confuses message threads. If the
need arises, post a message to one recipient and reference any other individuals names in the message body.

Since by its nature, the echo can be read by all whom choose to take it,
every message is readable by all. John Doe can as easily see messages addressed to him as he could for messages addressed to All. Do not
complain when you address a message to one person and another chooses
to reply to it.

There is no expectation of privacy in the echo as far as the content of
the messages you post or have posted to you, if you desire privacy then
use private methods of communication. If there is information you do not
want publically known then do not post it or make it known how to access
this information. If you know intimate details about another participant
that you had knowledge of in which the participant did not want revealed,
do not reveal it. The exception being knowledge freely obtainable as
having been dessiminated publically, such as another echo, BBS or Internet website.

Messages addressed to you are fair game for anyone to reply to, remember
this is an open echo, not a private netmail or email inbox. However if
you do respond to a message that is addressed to someone else, do not
pretend to speak for or as that individual.

[Messages to 'ALL']

Messages posted to 'ALL' must meet and pass at least one of these tests:

* Posting a article or other missive to introduce a topic for debate.
(See the rule regarding imported content)

* Posting information which is conveying information relevant to the
entire echo membership or making an announcement.

Messages addressed to 'ALL' in which said message is technically a
message reply to an individual are forbidden. These messages are in
most cases an attempt to make the person whose name should have been in
the TO field, the topic for debate. In nearly every case, it is usually because someone has another twitted and the twitted still wants to get
in the last word. Being that this is a public echo, twitted or not the
entire echo membership will still get to see your "last word" even if
the person twitting you will not, therefore altering the TO field,
changes nothing.

[Open Doors]

Due to the nature of this echoes topic, there is going to be in most
cases an adversarial footing, meaning that your opponents will seek to
probe and prod you to find out your weaknesses or your strengths, but
more often the former. On any given topic whether it is about you or not,
you are responsible for the doors you open. If you say you did this, are
on that, then that is your problem if the information gets turned around
on you or turned on you.

When debating a opponent, for petes sake, have a leg to stand on when you
do so, we dont need bank robbers calling shoplifters, thieves.

The moderators in this case cannot be your Holy Protectors in this
instance.

[Truth, Lies And Those Not Here]

The moderators are not responsible for arbitrating or deciding the
factuality of any statement one member might make to or about another
fellow echo member or non-member.

The moderators are factoring in that the written message is not the best
form of communication, that each member comes from different beliefs
and lifetime experiences and that each and every one is an adult.

If you are slighted by another member with incorrect facts or outright
lies, there is no expectation that the person whom slighted you will
retract or apologize, hounding one for same will be considered
disruptive to the echo if said hounding starts dominating echo
discussions. If it comes to this point, both the accused and accuser
in addition to anyone else whom have chosen sides, will be asked to
stop the discussion with said discussion becoming off topic.

[Behavior]

Unfortunately, some will flame, be flamed or "feel" flamed, its how you
respond to them is what counts, ignore the person or ignore the flame.
Politics are a passionate topic for all those who take the time to
discuss it. (See tail end of this section)

With that said..

The CROSSFIRE echo IS NOT a FLAME ECHO! (MATZDOBRE echo is)

This echo is not a platform for the sole purpose to cast insults onto
another participant.

If you need to do so, take it to the MATZDOBRE echo.

The common list of swear words are not forbidden especially if used to reinforce emphasis. However using them for the sake of using them can
discredit your post. Spit spewing tirades will be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Messages that only convey a personal slam are off topic, but will be
dealt with on a case by case basis.

If you are spending time retaliating against what you perceive as
attacks,do not expect moderator protection, sometimes a reprisal
often exceeds the level of the offense? When one wrestles with pigs, by
the time its over, all are so muddy that you cant tell the pigs apart.
The key is to not let everyone else know which of your buttons can be
pressed in which the pressing of them positively reinforces the idea in
their heads that they are getting to you. If you are truly the victim of
a flame or personal attack, then play that part and do not retaliate, do
not even respond to the attack. If you retaliate then chances for a
remedy are diminished. An analogy if you will, for those of you whom
are involved with or are fans of High School, College or Pro Football,
in many cases when a player is flagged for a personal foul up to being
ejected from the game, it is more often than not the player whom
retaliated that gets flagged and caught, not the player whom started
it. It is not always fair but it happens because as mentioned earlier
the retaliations often reach a level that is more severe than the
initial offense.

[Twit Filters]

Twit Filters, if ones reader is so equipped, can block out the messages
of those whom might be irritating, abrasive, abusive etc. You are
encouraged to employ one if you can, if it means enhancing your own
usage of this echo and to prevent you from surrendering to the natural temptation of sinking to the level of behavior as what your opponent
might be partaking in.

A word to the wise on using a twit filter:

* Dont let your antagonizer (twit) know that you are placing them into
your filter. For that matter, do not let anyone else know that you are
going to put someone into your twit filter or have already twit filtered
someone. Simply quietly do it and be done with it.

* Despite popular belief, twit filtering someone is still a two way street,
this means that if you are using a tool to prevent yourself from seeing
someone elses messages, you yourself cannot take pot shots at the person
you have filtered in messages to others, knowing full well that you wont
get to see their responses. DONT DO IT!

The moderators recognise that you will be able to see messages addressed to
a person you may have twitted and you might see parts of their messages included in quoted message replies. However once you cross the threshold
in twitting someone, that person should no longer exist as far as you are concerned. When in doubt, just remember that this echo is not for flames or
a platform to take potshots. A twit filter is to protect you from abuse,
not a shield to hide behind so that you can hurl it back with impunity.

A word to the wise if you know or think you are in someones twit filter:

* Do not do anything to defeat someones twit filter, up to and including
the spelling of your name.

* If someone stops replying to your messages, take it to heart that they
do not want to communicate with you.

[Fidonet Policy]

Fidonet Policy defines echomail as a different flavor of netmail, to
that extent, that is the only binding thing Fidonet Policy has on this
echo.

Nothing that gets said in this echo can be used to file any Fidonet
Policy Complaints, except in rare cases in which someone is posting or formatting messages in a way that is known to crash the messaging
processing software of one or more systems, because the message was too
large, a specific size or some other deliberate malformation of message control fields or lines.

Nodelisted sysops cannot use Fidonet Policy against non-nodelisted
individuals and non-nodelisted individuals cannot wield Fidonet Policy
at all.

[Moderator rulings and echo moderation]

Leave the moderating of this echo to the moderators.

DO NOT publically call upon the moderators to enforce the rules, the moderators are not your Holy Protectors and are the sole interpreters of
the rules and as to what will be acted upon and when.

The Moderators reserve the right to determine the rules for this echo,
when a rule has been broken, whether or not to enforce a rule, when in
doubt, leave the moderating of the echo to the moderators.

This rule set cannot possibly cover every possible scenario or event that
could be defined as disruptive to this echo, therefore the moderators are
not confined to only those things elaborated on in this rule set. If the
need arises, the moderators reserve the right to act upon and rule out of bounds any activity that disrupts the echo, challenges moderator authority despite not being spelled out within this rule set.. Meaning the rules are subject to change at anytime with or without warning. Translation, the
rules are dynamic, not static.

Coming into the echo to complain about it or how it is moderated is
forbidden, entry and usage of this echo is voluntary, if you dont like what you see, then use the same freedom of choice to go elsewhere.

Putting conditions on the moderator in order for you to control your own behavior is forbidden, this means you cannot demand the moderator do a specific thing you demanded in order for you to stop a certain
behavior. Make a demand like this and watch your access go away.

If you are a moderator of another echo in which you proclaim to have a better echo, rule set or style and you behave disruptively in here that contradicts your own posture and philosophy from your own echo, then you will be held to the standards you demand in your echo. The rule of thumb here is to
follow this echoes rules and worry about your own echo within your own
echo.

Disciplinary actions taken because of a rule violation will be
determined on a case by case basis and by the moderators. Do not expect
or demand a particular punishment for any rule violation you might
witness. It is hoped that only warnings are necessary, such warning or
other moderator actions to be either or both dessiminated publically or privately.

Your moderators are:

Ross Cassell, 1:123/500 or 1:123/456 E-Mail: rcassell[at]gmail[dot]com

**NOTE**

References made to 'email' mean that mail which is privately distributed
over the internet. The moderators recognise that email, being a shortened version for 'electronic mail', could be defined as any type of message dessiminated electronically, such as but not limited to a public fidonet echomail message. However, in this case these definitions apply:

Netmail:

System to System messages, semi-private, meaning that if the message is
written by a non-sysop, the message is readable by the sysop of the
system a user wrote the message from and if sent to another non-sysop,
the sysop of the system the message was sent to. Due to the way netmail
is transported, often routed through intermediary systems, netmail can
be read by the sysops of the systems that message traverses and at a
minimum by the sysops of the source and target systems. Ordinarily you
wont have too many issues here but you should be aware that you do not
have total privacy here and that netmail messages are readable by others
under certain scenarios. The exception to this would be if a sysop sends
a netmail message directly to another sysops system in which the sending
sysop is the the author and the receiving sysop is the intended recipient
of the message, in this case there is privacy.

Echomail:

Publically readable messages. Anyone can read these messages whom take
the echo area they are in. These messages are why you are here. In many
cases users can access older messages that exist in an area before they
joined said echo area. There is no expectation of privacy when writing messages in this form.

Email:

Internet Email (Hi BK)... If you want privacy, then use this!
---
* Origin: The Moderator (1:123/500)