"There can be more than one reason." Yes, but reasons 'afterwards' are always easily found (and even believed by themselves). It's called 'to rationalise'. The reason why it actually got deleted, is the reason first given in the email, which was based on an emotional tit-for-tat reaction, and is now being rationalised by saying: "oh, but you didn't use it anymore anyway", "you can't be trusted", etc.
"What you would suggest is more or less the same thing as abandoning Freenet." You make the mistake of equalling the Freenet project with the current architecture. Surely, you can not seriously contend this is the same. In the beginnings, freenet didn't *have* any architecture, yet the project was there. It's the goal that counts, not the underlying architecture or techniques used. I mean, if - by some miracle - it is acknowledged that major parts of the software needs to be rewritten, are you then going to say Freenet is dead? Are you going to call it something else, because you changed the underlying architecture (which most newbie users don't care about much anyway, as long as it does what it is supposed to do)? Freenet is what you make of it; as long as it fulfills it's aims, it does not matter what architecture you use to create it. "So am I. I have heard from many users that it is better than it was. And I have heard from the newbie that it is working acceptably performance wise. And on my own node I rarely see RNFs and can fetch a great deal of content." Then the least one can say, is that there are many users that find it crap, and many that find it better than it was. I do not think this contradicts eachother per sé; I do not doubt that many users, who have experienced the totally borked network in the past, indeed feel that it is better now then in the past. 'Better' is comparing to something else; it does not say much about the actual performance on itself. The newbie also said I helped him, something you seem to deem irrelevant. ;-) As for your own node: I'll answer that one with another post relating to the performance. "It is not a childish punishment. You cannot be trusted." Rationalisation. You didn't delete the account; Ian did. And he did so for the reason he mentionned in his email. "Disallowing you an @freenetproject.org account is hardly restricting your freedom of speech!" It is clearly a free speech issue, if it is done because one does not like what someone else (in this case me) is saying. "We are not obliged to accredit you, just as a university is not obliged to give a PhD to a pupil who cheats." He first would have to demonstrate he cheated. *I*, on the other hand, have demonstrated that saying that freenet still sucks (at least from the endusers' perspective with an ordinary puter, connection and seednode), is not besides the truth. And staying with your analogy: he could NOT, and certainly not unilateraly, decide to revoke the PhD once he had given it to the pupil. "Just as we can ban trolls from the IRC channel and even the mailing list; that's not a threat in this particular mail, nor is it a promise, but it is merely a relevant remark." It is not about 'being able' to do something. As libertarians (or at least freenetters) we all know that whomever has the power, can do what he wants. Ian 'can' pull the plug (obviously), but that has no bearing on the question if it was fair. "...Given that newbie nodes always have much worse performance initially than after they have had time to integrate, if you can't see the likely cost of what you have said to the freenet project in terms of new users..." Yes, well, this comes to the crux, doesn't it? Is it, because when I say Freenet still sucks and you feel offended by it, or because I 'abuse' or 'lie' or 'work against' freenet? Is it 'against us', or against the Freenet project? I would say that, seen my recent experimental evidence, what I say is close to the observable truth, provided you start with what an ordinary user would have. So how does telling the truth doing something to the detriment and 'cost in terms of new users' of the Freenet project? Are you suggesting I should say something contrary to experimental evidence, just to lore in more new users? I do not describe to that idea: I think it's far better to honestly say to newbies that they shouldn't expect much of it then to be over-optimistic every time, like some High Gods have consistantly done. In fact, I think THAT is screwing the Freebie and to 'the detriment of Freenet' and in the long term also to 'the cost of new users'. It's exactly because of creating high expectations with the newbie that so many users feel cheated and double dissapointed and leave Freenet, probably for good. If we were more upfront on how bad freenet is for people that don't have tweaked their puters, have T1 lines, are a seednode, leave their box on 24/24 7/7, etc.we might actually be benefiting Freenet far more then with dulling them into believing all will work out great. _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
