Articles

• Burt Juda's system no longer in the Nodelist?
• Cash and Carry - Financing FidoFolks
• Solid Oak Software's extremist, fascist behavior
• Doomsday is only when you decide it to be
• Fidonet versus Internet: A Followup
• Fidonet Technical Standards Committee - NOTICE OF NOMINATIONS
• Ides of March..Hog Wash!

Burt Juda's system no longer in the Nodelist?

[Burt Juda's Guucp Node and all other Nodes under his name no longer appear in the FidoNet Nodelist. Here's a little info on this event from an ongoing conversation in email.] Ed.

Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 09:43:03 -0600
From: James Young <youngj@sparky3.arc.net>
To: Christopher Baker <cbaker84@digital.net>
Subject: Re: 1:13/10

CB> did he say something else would replace it or is he finished?
CB> what is/was his email address? i'd like to get something into
CB> FidoNews tomorrow.

Here's a copy of the message I received:

Subject: Re: 1:13/10
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 10:14:34 -0500
From:merlin@mcastl.ieee.org (Burt Juda)
Organization: Merlin's Castle, Edison, NJ
To: James Young <youngj@sparky3.arc.net>

At 04:25 PM 3/14/97 -0600, James Young wrote:

JY> I've been using 1:13/10 for some time now as my gateway and
JY> appreciate the service that you have provided.
>
JY> For the last several days, however, my system has not been able to
JY> connect with it. Is 1:13/10 down for a while?

Down permanently .. hardware crash.

-30-

[Does this mean anything to the fidonet.org domain for FidoNet to Internet email routing? An official notice would have been nice. [sigh] Guucp gurus please reply to FidoNews.] Ed.

Cash and Carry - Financing FidoFolks
by: Clay Tannacore (1:372/136)

Just when you thought it was safe to start reading FIDONEWS again. I'm back! This time with an unforgiving message to all of the Network EchoMail Coordinators, and the SysOps who have by way of their acquisitiveness damn near annihilated FidoNet. These parsimonious individuals who have persuaded themselves that users, and/or EchoMail recipients have a reverential responsibility to pay for whatever they (NECs or SysOps) elect to charge for. Some-how these weasels have decided that a federation such as FidoNet that was established as a network of hobbyists, should now (to suit their greedy souls) become the Federal Savings and Loan Association for Retarded (OOPs, did I misspell that last word?) SysOps and NECs. This technique of self enrichment is a plague within the FidoNet community and requires immediate attention. When I say "immediate action" I do not mean some co-conspirator looking into it, I mean every damn Regional Coordinator launching a extensive inquiry into this agendum. I'm sure that this form of self enrichment has won the wide embrace of those who have profited by it, but the rest of us are witnessing the demise of our user base, and FidoNet as our parent organization.

For those of you who are not familiar with what I have been doing in the most recent past. I have for the last 76 days been researching complaints in reference to the charging of fees to users and the pay as you go fees charged for EchoMail (NEC's) distribution. Be it known that I have only been able to accumulate statistics from 26 different nets. This was accomplished by personal contact with various SysOps in those nets, and obtaining copies of their respective EchoMail policy documents. Without elaborating on individual net policies, I will state that there are a number of bulletin board systems that charge a user fee (aka, a donation, registration fee, or voluntary contributions) for services that should (under POLICY4.) be free of any expense. The proceeding statement includes access to FidoNet (and international) EchoMail, local EchoMail, files (sometimes shareware) including Copyrighted material. As a matter of fact the greatest number of Pay-For-Access bulletin board systems, are nothing but illegal software distribution points, catering to those who want low cost (copyright infringements) programs. However, to be fair about this statement, there are an abundant amount of boards that only charge for access to the Internet. Something that is exclusively harmful and destructive in nature to FidoNet as a whole.

There are correspondingly many Network Coordinators that are for reasons unbeknown to me allowing the Network EchoMail Coordinators to place monitory assessment in excess of the cost of providing their services to their nets SysOps. The buddy-buddy system is widespread, and individual SysOps are being assessed amounts that can not be justified once telephone LD charges are reviewed. A buddy may only pay a penance for the import of 30 or more Echoes while another SysOp who hasn't been initiated into The Brotherhood will have to supplement the NEC's coffers by paying (his FAIR share) 10 to 20 times as much as an amigo, even though the SysOp only carries 4 or 5 Echoes. Don't get me wrong, there are a number of NEC operations that are completely within the parameters set forth in Policy 4. There are many NEC's that will for reasons justified to him, wavier the requirement of fees for certain systems. I'm in one of those nets that do. The NEC here (in the 372 Net) has allowed my system to operate without the burden on fees for EchoMail. While my system only imports 3 national Echoes (totally for Disabled American Veterans) it is without a doubt a Godsend not to have to expend the extra bucks each month. The trouble is, not very many other NEC's will do that. They have an agenda to fill, along with their pockets, and wouldn't give a worthwhile cause the time of day, without an interest payment. I have read over 19 of the local EchoMail policies, and without a doubt they all sound like a financial statement rather than a policy document. Sometimes this is an attempt by the NEC to explain to the SysOp why he must help out financially, and what he will receive in return for his buck. Nevertheless, there are policy documents that I have reviewed that are nothing more than the NEC's way of intimidating the SysOp's with refined threats. Even in my own net, the policy document is little more than a business type financial proclamation. There is a time and place for this sort of document, but rather than constructing a policy document laden with "what has to be paid", why not give a demonstration (factual, of course) of what it costs to operate for a month. Surely this way will serve two purposes. One, the SysOp gains an understanding as to why he is paying, and what he is getting for his money. Two, there is a full disclosure" of what is really spent for mail distribution and communications, leaving no undisclosed data to cause derogatory or speculative talk.

Gentlemen what I have just expounded upon is true. You know it, you live under it day by day. You, (whether you are a user or SysOp), know the practices and circumstances I quoted above are factual. You've seen it in almost every net. So, why not do something about it? Let your Regional Coordinator know your feelings. Have your NEC post in an open message base, his phone bill for the previous month. Maybe the last two or three months. Get on the NC of your net relating to what you feel is an unjust and inequitable way you must support the EchoMail system. One word of caution here. When and if you do as I propose, be sure you have a valid complaint. Talk to others in your net, find out their charges for their EchoMail. Compare the charges they are required to pay, and ask them to inquire of their friends as to their contributions.

Solid Oak Software's
extremist, fascist behavior
Fredric L. Rice (frice@stbbs.com)
The Skeptic Tank, 1:218/890.0. (818) 335-9601
http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/index.htm

Right-wing extremist groups operating in the United States have been using the rhetoric of "Save the children!" to advance their occult agendas for decades. Now, with the help of technology, a new fascist business called "Solid Oak Software" has managed to rise above all the rest and get noticed.

As described below, their Internet-access software limits the information that the company's leader -- Brian Milburn -- wants his customers to access. Even though customers are told it "saves the children!" the company doesn't advertise [1] the fact that the parents who purchase the software have no say-so in what it will allow access to and what it will not; the buyer unthinkingly purchases the extremist bias of the company's leader.

Indeed, it gets worse: Mr. Milburn refuses to divulge the sites that the software won't access and has implemented very weak encryption to make sure that parents never learn about his extremist bias. He gets upset when people publicly report on some of the sites that he doesn't want anyone to access. (If he's embarrassed by his prejudices, he shouldn't expose them, I opine.)

Buyer beware.

As for myself, I've asked to have my web pages included in the list of banned sites. The cult does provide a highly valuable service to educational organizations like mine by limiting the access to their web pages to educated, intelligent people. As more and more people become aware of what the software does, only people who share the company leader's bizarre bias will use it --and I don't want those types of people accessing my materials any way. Do you?

[1] This may change. The company may have to start publicly admitting that customers can't select what they can or can not access (perhaps the company has already started.) People who purchase Internet- censoring software have the right to at least know that in addition to limiting the access to pornography, the software also limits access to educational systems and charity organizations.

-=-

CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // December 20
Jacking in from the "Your Agenda is Showing" Port:

Washington -- It's a long held maxim that technology is "agenda neutral." Until now.

As an earlier Dispatch investigation proved, the so-called "blocking software" industry, praised for enabling parents, teachers and corporations to block porn from being sucked into the computers of those trolling the Web, often comes with a shrink-wrapped, encrypted agenda in the form of the database of web sites and newsgroups these programs actually block.

Porn sites aren't the only ones blocked. Sites with decided political or activist agendas, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) or animal rights groups, also are blocked. Trouble is, these blocking software programs don't make this known to the user. For some companies, shedding a spotlight on their underlying agenda, makes them sweat bullets or foam at the ascii mouth. Such is the case with Brian Milburn, president of Solid Oak Software, developer of an insipidly named blocking program called "Cybersitter."

When confronted with his agenda ridden software, Milburn isn't shy about it, indeed, he was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: "If NOW doesn't like it, tough... We have not and will not bow to any pressure from any organization that disagrees with [our] philosophy."

So when Bennett Haselton decided to put a sharp edge on this subject by focusing on Cybersitter with laser like precision, Milburn went off the charts.

Milburn wrote to Media3, the ISP that houses Haselton's website <www.peacefire.org>, saying he was adding the entire domain of Media3 to the Cybersitter blocking database, in order to keep anyone using his company's product from gaining access to Haselton's article.

Milburn ranted to Media3 that Haselton had made it "his mission in life to defame our product" exhibiting "extreme immaturity," by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. Milburn claimed that Haselton may have "illegally reversed engineered" the Cybersitter database. Milburn has threatened legal action. Haselton, however, found a white knight. After hearing about Milburn's actions, Mike Godwin, legal counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, decided to represent him.

In an Email to Wired News correspondent Rebecca Vesely, who wrote about Milburn's beef with Haselton, Milburn said he was swamped with "geek-mail" from Wired News' "loyal following of pinhead idiots." Milburn characterized Haselton, "an aspiring felon" and said that he had confirmation that Haselton was the "ghost writer" for the original Dispatch article that broke the story of the hidden agendas in blocking software.

All this bluster over Haselton, an 18-year-old with too much time on his hands. If right about now you're thinking that Milburn should pick on someone his own size, well, he's already "been there, done that" and got his ass kicked in the process.

You see, after the first Dispatch article, Milburn sent us a saber- rattling Email. His Aug. 15th Email claimed that "your willful reverse engineering and subsequent publishing of software code is a clear violation" of copyright law. And although he claimed he was sure he could win a case in civil court, he was instead seeking "felony criminal prosecution" by going to the FBI with his beef.

I referred Milburn to my lawyers at Baker & Hostetler, who promptly pointed out that Dispatch hadn't been the one to hack the cybersitter database. Further, our article was "protected by the full force of the First Amendment," our lawyers said.

And because Dispatch only published "fragments" of the Cybersitter database (a word used first by Milburn in his own threatening letter), such publication "fits squarely within the fair use provisions" of the copyright act, our lawyers reminded Milburn.

Finally, Milburn was left to chew on this: "If you persist in accusing [Dispatch] falsely of copyright infringement and if you proceed with your ill-conceived threat to encourage the FBI to commence activities... you should understand that, unless the information you provide is accurate and complete, you and your firm may be incurring liability of your own."

Not a peep has been heard from Milburn since he received that letter, until he decided to pick on the kid.

Milburn is apparently operating in some alternative reality. His so- called "confirmed sources" about Haselton "ghost writing" our original story are utterly false.

Haselton had nothing to do with our article. Dispatch obtained the cracked code of Cybersitter and the other programs we mentioned from an entirely different source. Haselton did nothing but build on the work of our original story, but never wrote a single word of the article nor did he provide us with the hacked databases.

All of Milburn's heartburn has me confused. Rather than try and slay Haselton, he should pay him for the right to reprint his article and findings. Milburn makes no apologies for his agenda; indeed, he is proud that one of his major distributors is "Focus on the Family" a conservative Christian organization.

And for people that brook with the conservative, straight-arrow family values ideals that Focus on the Family advocates, Cybersitter is the perfect fit. Indeed, this is the free market working at its best. Products spring up in direct response to demand. Cybersitter fits that model for a particular segment of the society. You may not like it; I certainly wouldn't use a product with this built in agenda, but nobody is making us buy it.

You would think that Milburn would eat up such "negative" press and wear it like a badge of honor. But he is too petty; too small minded. And when he discovers that Haselton did nothing more than run Cybersitter through its paces, much the same way that a reviewer for computer magazine might, and then report the findings, he'll have nobody left to harass. I hope he doesn't have a dog he can kick...

Have a Merry Christmas, Mr. Milburn. Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men.

Meeks out...

-=-=-=-

Cybersitter Goes after Teen
by Rebecca Vesely

8:00 pm PST 9 Dec 96 - A teenager who founded a Net anti-censorship group could face a lawsuit from the owner of the popular blocking program Cybersitter, Solid Oak Software, on grounds that he illegally obtained the list of sites blocked by the program.

But the 18-year-old student at Vanderbilt University who founded Peacefire, Bennett Haselton, says that he merely ran the blocking software on his computer and kept track of which sites were blocked - such as the National Organization for Women, Mother Jones, and The Well.

"According to our sources, he has engaged in illegal criminal copyright violations to further his juvenile teenaged political agenda, and reduce the effectiveness of our product," said Brian Milburn, president of Solid Oak Software.

Solid Oak has added Peacefire to its list of blocked sites and has asked Peacefire's Internet provider, Media3, to remove Peacefire from its server. Milburn has also said he will block out all content Media3 hosts if it does not remove Haselton's site.

"It's pretty ironic that Cybersitter, which is supposed to help kids, is blocking a student-run organization," Haselton said. Peacefire was founded in August and now has about 100 members, of whom the average age is 15 years old.

Haselton wrote an article naming some of Cybersitter's blocked sites last month on the Peacefire Web site, but the site wasn't blocked until Friday, after Haselton contacted Milburn to discuss the company's blocking practices, Haselton said. The student was then told that Solid Oak had referred the matter to its legal department.

"There was no way he could have known who was on our list without breaking into our system," said Solid Oak spokesman Mark Kanter. "The filter had to be decoded by reverse engineering" - a process of taking a piece of technology and, without any knowledge of the techniques used to create it, making a copy.

In an email written to Media3 on Friday, and forwarded to Wired News by Media3's administrator, Joe Hayes, Milburn said that Haselton "has made it his mission in life to defame our product," and warned that all content to Media3 - some 2,500 domain names -would be blocked on Cybersitter if Peacefire was not removed.

"We realize this is an extreme measure and regret that our customers will no longer have access to any sites serviced by Media3. I am not sure if any of our current customers are Media3 subscribers, but as they will no longer be able to access their email and such, we will offer any affected customers complete refunds," Milburn said in the email.

Hayes said Solid Oak has given him no proof that Haselton has done anything illegal, so he would not remove Peacefire, and noted that among the content on Media3's server is a Mayflower Society Bulletin Board and "everything to do with Pilgrims and Plymouth Rock." Hayes added that Media3's attorneys have been alerted to the situation, and if the ISP is blocked, it will take legal action. Solid Oak does not normally inform sites they have been blocked.

Copyright (c) 1993-97 Wired Ventures, Inc. and affiliated companies.
All rights reserved.

Subject: Doomsday is only when you decide it to be.

I have been a SysOp for 7 years.. and a member of FidoNet for 6 years.

When I first joined the network, FidoNet's NodeList wasn't very large at all, in fact, it was puny compared to 1995. But the quality of messages was far greater and made up for the few nodes. The quality of FidoNet's messages even now is far higher than that of the InterNet, which has a gigantic amount of nodes that kills our count by a longshot. Quality far outweighs magnitude.

Through my experience with the BBS world I have found that we have always struggled for our hobby. This struggle in many cases has faced the shut-down of our systems or networks in one way or another.

During the years of 1994 through 1996, the number of BBSes grew by the thousands. But were ALL of these systems quality BBSes? In many cases no. It was until my second year as a SysOp that I learned what the true meaning of the word was. During that second year my Seagate ST251 MFM Hard Disk died, it literally burnt up the spindle motor as a result of a shot power regulator. I lost everything I had made of my BBS, which at the time had about 1000+ members and about 30 callers per day. All of this work was lost, and I knew there was no way I could retrieve it. It quite unfortunately went up in smoke, I came home one night and smelled burning epoxy in the air... and immediately feared the loss of my Bulletin Board System. After three long weeks and about twenty litres or more of Pepsi, I knew that I was a true SysOp... I could not give up. I WANTED my BBS, I wanted to have that feeling that I was offering a free service to the public... I wanted to be respected for my efforts. My BBS stayed online until December 16th, 1995.. when I could no longer afford the bills to maintain my computer and the phone line. I felt like my life had ended, because it was and is still all that I have ever had. If it weren't for the BBS world, I would not have met my best friends, who have brought the best times of my life. I would not have known that my strengths lie in computers. Forget the InterNet, anything can have Balloon Curtains and Fluffy Bunnies, but when there is slime packaged inside, it becomes unattractive very quickly. BBSes retain character, and quality.. and offer something the InterNet will never have, because of the commercialization and magnitude which the InterNet thrives upon; the FidoNet is a warm caring community, which is controlled and managed, this is quite clearly not shown on the InterNet. I worked for many months and finally paid all of my bills, and have put my system online only three weeks ago. "You're crazy!", "You won't get your users back!" people would say... But I know that I can bring them back, not the same users, but I will get back good users. That's all that will be left, and that's all I ever wanted. Back in 1995, the BBS world became more strongly oriented towards files and such, when it used to be communication and entertainment. The InterNet offers these, but they are abused and not managed. The BBS world is not shown on TV or flashed in newspapers only because it does not bring profit. That's the media for you, but I don't want that attention... I want to provide a means of communication which is precisely what FidoNet provides and always has provided to its clients and its clients users. Three weeks have passed since I put the BBS back online, and I already have over thirty users and eight calls a day average, which I am quite impressed with at this time.

After all of the dust has blown off, the goodness of the FidoNet community will shine through and continue to be what it always has: An Icon to the connected world, a free service which has much higher standards than that of any commercial service. Those who remove themselves from the FidoNet Nodelist are quitters, I am not a quitter.

Let all of those nodes drop like flies, but the nodes which remain will bring the great quality they have always provided to the FidoNet Echos. And the users from those systems which drop, will call the systems which remain. And the BBS world will thrive once again... the way it should be.

Fidonet's doomsday is not today, and I will not allow for it to happen tomorrow.

Statistics are pointless, a curve of dropping nodes will not remain, as the number of users reverting to other systems will increase, the with-drawn node addresses will decrease. And there will certainly always be a BBS community, as long as there are people like me, and hopefully all those who read FidoNews.

Carl Hultay - SysOp of Cannibal Bar & Grill BBS
1:259/546
egon@idirect.com

Followup to Pete Snidal's Fidonet/Internet Comparison
by Dave Aronson, sysop of Air 'n Sun (1:109/120)

PS> FIDONET Is a system of hobbyist-operated bulletin boards,

Well, mostly. To nitpick, there are some professional nodes.

However, I feel that your point is basically correct and should be expanded upon. The important part IMHO is that most Fidonodes are one-line DOS-PC dialups, operated from the sysop's home. By contrast, an ISP typically has hundreds or thousands of lines, hooked to large computers, operated in a "machine room" in commercial space.

PS> which connect and exchange data
PS> regularly, usually on a nightly schedule.

Where local calling is cheap, it's very common for high-traffic nodes to get an "unlimited local calling" line, and connect to local links whenever there is anything to send.

PS> INTERNET Is a system of server computers, also spanning the
PS> world,

Or would that be "spamming the world"? B-(

PS> which are virtually connected to one another at all times.

Not necessarily. There are many that are only occasionally connected, but these do not generally host any of the "real time" services that most people think of when they think "Internet", like web pages and ftp directories.

PS> The "Noise/signal ratio" of these echoes is quite low,

So let's look into HOW this miracle is achieved. It is in fact IMHO one of the most important differences, concerning day-to-day use.

In Internet, almost all newsgroups are unmoderated -- any twit can wander in, say whatever he wants (not only off-topic chatter, but flames, trolls, ads, etc.), AND he can instantly spew it into every newsgroup in creation. The only recourse is public pressure on his ISP, who may or may not be willing to do a damn thing. (Usually not, so long as he pays his bills and doesn't generate too many complaints to ignore.) There are SOME moderated newsgroups, but this is a very heavy burden on the moderator, as THEIR type of moderation means that the moderator must pre-screen each and every post for approval.

Fidonet echoes, on the other claw, usually (always, in the case of the backbone) have a moderator, who is authorized to eject unruly posters, and if the sysop refuses, the moderator can have that entire node ejected from the echo! However, it rarely comes to that, as the sysop has no vested interest in refusing, as he's almost certainly not getting any money from the user, nor does the sysop have support staff to deal with the complaints for him. Also, it is impossible on most Fidonet BBSes to "crosspost", at least in the Internet sense of having the whole thread continue to be crossposted to all the newsgroups the original was in, barring manual intervention.

PS> files of particular interest may even be "File
PS> Requested" from other systems.

...though the sysop will have to pay for the call, and may require that the user reimburse the cost.

PS> Sending of commercial messages in Fidonet is prohibited, and
PS> "Spamming" - electronic junk-mail - is impossible.

Not impossible at all... just MUCH more difficult, and of course our sysops are MUCH faster to DO something about it! B-)

PS> "Spamming" - the sending of electronic junkmail to your personal
PS> email box - is seriously frowned upon, and sort of prohibited,

Hunh? There are currently no laws against it anywhere that I know of; the closest are some USA laws against junk faxes, but some courts have held that it doesn't apply to email. Many ISPs have a clause against it in their Terms Of Usage (or whatever they call it), but most are very slow to enforce it.

PS> but the fight with those who would capitalize on this resource
PS> in this way is ongoing.

Amen! Americans, PLEASE lobby your Congresscritters to have the "no junk faxes" law extended to email!!! Others, do whatever you can....

By the way, I have thought up two slogans that I would like to get spread as widely as possible. First, inspired by Woodsy Owl's admonition to litterbugs, "Give a damn, don't spam!". Secondly, inspired by the reaction of a Vogon to Arthur Dent's struggles, NOT the Borg as some may think, "Resistance is UCE-less!". (UCE is an Internet abbreviation for Unsolicited Commercial Email.)

PS> INTERNET Allows access to the "World Wide Web."

(Probably the biggest thing that helped the Internet explode in popularity with the Great Unwashed.)

PS> FIDONET Costs the user nothing. Free basic access is a
PS> fundamental given on all Fidonet systems. User support is
PS> sometimes encouraged, but never demanded.

True in, I'd guess, 99% of cases, but don't take it for granted that Fidonet means free. Also, many nodes offer a basic level of service for free, but reserve some goodies for donors. However, these are usually things that the sysop must shell out significant money for, like extra phone lines, Usenet newsgroups, echoes he must make long-distances calls to get, etc., and the fee is usually a tiny fraction of a typical ISP's.

PS> FIDONET Encourages the use of Pre-Windows computers, or
PS> "dosboxes."

More like, Fidonet allows the use of ANY computer, or even a dumb terminal, so long as it has a modem, and is efficient enough that it can even be a SLOW modem. This is a huge contrast to how, ever since the Web exploded, it's very difficult to do much on the Internet without a GUI, fast CPU and modem, and tons of disk space and RAM.

PS> node and bbs software, [...] all of which run fine in Dosboxes
PS> such as 286's and even XT's, with small hard drives, or no hard
PS> drives, and with memory as low as the basic 640K.

...or on a wide variety of NON-DOS boxes, like Macs, Amigas, Atari STs, assorted flavors of Unix, etc.! Standards and compatibility....

PS> INTERNET "No tickee, no launlee" is the motto of the ISP. The
PS> Internet is a strictly commercial, no-bones money-making
PS> proposition.

As far as today's ISPs are concerned, yes. However, do realize that the roots are quite different. It was spun off from ARPANET, built by the Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency, as a network to supply government communications need in times of emergency, being able to withstand even a direct nuclear strike on most major nodes. Until the price of computers fell fast enough to let the Great Unwashed afford the Internet, it was generally the province of those lucky enough to work at a connected company or attend a connected university, with the institutions usually doing a lot of defense research.

PS> For the number of the fidonet bbs nearest you (there is likely
PS> one in your town,) consult your local computer outlet or computer
PS> paper. For details on hooking up to the internet, consult your
PS> yellow pages.

That really says it all. B-(

NOTICE OF FTSC NOMINATIONS
by Adrian Walker, 1:153/752

Since 1 December 1996, discussion has been underway in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo defining the mission and operating procedures for a revitalized Fidonet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC).

These have been formalized in two new documents, FTA-1000 (FTSC Charter) and FTA-1001 (FTSC Operations) which have been hatched into the FTSC file echo and are also available from:

File Request - 1:153/752 as FTA-1000.TXT and FTA-1001.TXT
Internet - http://www.portal.ca/~awalker/ftsc.htm [faulty URL [jb 4/25/01]] Update: http://www.ftsc.org

With the finalization of these documents, nominations are now being accepted for FTSC Standing Members. The following extract from FTA-1001 describes the nomination and voting process:

FTSC members are appointed for a two year renewable term. [50 % of appointments on initial formation of the FTSC shall be for a 3 year renewable term, to ensure continuity of the Committee on expiry of the terms.]

To be selected as a FTSC member, an individual must be a Fidonet node, and should be actively involved in Fidonet. Examples include having put out a Fidonet-related product or having updated a product in the preceding two years, or having experience as a Coordinator, Echomail Coordinator or mail or file Hub.

Standing members may be nominated Fidonet-wide by all of the following methods:

1. any RC or REC
2. a nominating committee established for the purpose by the FTSC
3. a nominating committee established for the purpose by the ZCC

A nominating committee may not consist of any current member or officer of the FTSC.

Standing members are appointed on the basis of a vote by all RCs and RECs who are nodelisted as holding those positions at the time the nominations are published. A successful candidate must receive approval by a majority of votes.

Publication of the nomination and the voting procedure, and posting of RC and REC votes, shall take place openly in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo, and voting shall close three weeks after publication of the vote.

[Majority as defined in FTA-1001:
more than fifty percent of all votes cast.

ACTION REQUIRED

Since there is no nominating committee at this stage, those persons interested in becoming a Standing Member of the FTSC should state their interest to any currently-serving RC or REC and request that the RC or REC nominate them either by message in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo, or by netmail to Bruce Bodger (1:170/400) or Adrian Walker (153/752), who are administering the initial committee setup.

The closing date for such applications to be an active Standing Member of the FTSC will be Friday 18 April 1997. At that time a list of all applicants having been properly nominated will be published, and the voting process will then be followed as defined above.

---OOO000OOO---

Beware the Ides of March..Hog Wash!!!!
by Clay Tannacore 1:372/136

I have just completed reading the article written by a young man named Ken Reaverson. Now, I don't know if this is just one of the editor's (Chris Baker) spurious names, but I certainly hope so. Because if this isn't, we have yet another case of FidoNet Brain- washing, here. Allow me to elaborate somewhat on this point. The young man says he has been around FidoNet for some time, but has only recently became a Fido SysOp, sometime around the first of this year. To this point everything appears about right. However, what appears rather strange to me is his everlasting devotedness to an association he is only vaguely familiar with. A short three months as a FidoNet SysOp, and he is all ready to sacrifice his first born to King Fido. He has already forgiven those nasty old SysOps who wanted him to pay for access to their systems. Not only that, but this young man is ready to join the Pay-For-Access crowd who have bestowed upon FidoNet the title as the FREE (for a fee) HOBBYIST (semi-commercial) INFORMATION (flame thrower) SERVICE. He states that "These days, I like Fido", well I do to, it's just some of the deceitful folks within the Fido family that cause me to toss my cookies. Another really great thing this young man finds with the FidoNet community is the information and help he has received, and is now "able to provide my users with access to Internet email or USENET groups". Fine! Just what FidoNet needs, another access path to the Internet. Another way to draw on the user base of FidoNet. Another brain fart, thought up by people who don't give a damn what happens to this association of ours. Just when the hell are FidoNet SysOps going to start supporting FidoNet, again? I said this before and may as well repeat it here, because no one pays any attention to an old fart like myself, but it WAS FidoNet that paved the way for the new nouveau riche we now lovingly (?) call The Internet.

It is not my intention to make an example of this young man (Ken), but only to show what has happened in the (Fido) community in the last few years. In plain English, the damn organization has fallen apart. We haven't got an IC, and as far as an election goes, you may as well be spitting in the wind. There are just to many self serving dolts with their own agendas in positions within the association to hold out much hope for a FidoNet rebirth. To many power insatiate people in the organization to ever have a FidoNet that once was an entity with pride and purpose. To many egotistical SOB's who can't stand to see the organization get bigger than their own subliminal selves. Just to many blackguards to ever revive FidoNet, at least not to the decorated position it once held amongst computer users.

Let us once again take a close look at this dilapidated piece of paper, we so insipidly call a policy document. This ridiculous clump of words with the title of POLICY 4! Talk about a waste of writing. This asinine document that over the years has been the cornerstone of FidoNet, in that it is suppose to guide various IC's, ZC's, RC's, and NC's in the operation of their positions, and the function intended for FidoNet itself. Needless to say, much is lacking in this useless assemblage of gibberish we are suppose to consider a bible for the organization. Much is lacking, but one of the basics considerations that is missing is intelligence. I hate to admit to it, but I was around when this diseased document was originally written and voted upon. I didn't like it then, and I sure as hell can't stand the idea of it, today. It is time a new (and improved) POLICY document were written. A team of Fido people have to be assembled to formulate a coherent policy document. Whether they are brought together in one area as a group, or via the EchoMail process, there has to be action taken on this new policy document, if FidoNet is to survive. A set of guidelines, or rules, or even procedures must be written with the goal of standardizing and regulating the day to day operation of Fido Net, and the thousands of nodes down the line, while there are still enough nodes to even bother.

Okay people! A new song and dance. I know you're sick of the same old doom and gloom. Lets touch upon the Regional Coordinator position, and what they are doing, and what they should be doing. On a whole the RC's in most Nets are doing a fine job considering the lack of any real guidelines they have to work with. Of course I'm speaking of that piece of wreckage christened POLICY 4. Again the document with less testosterone than a flaccid Oscar Mayer Wiener. The lack of procedural material within that spent instrument never ceases to amaze me, and keeps me forever wondering just how any Regional Coordinator can administer the nodes they are responsible for. Consequently, we have a number of destructive individuals at the Network Coordinator level who whether or not they mean it, are contributing to the demise of FidoNet. The RC's are (and damn sure should be) responsible for each NC within their region. The RC HAS to involve himself (or herself) in the individual Nets under his control, and NOT by placing all his apples in one bushel. The RC is going to have to listen to those within that Net, that find his choice of NC disagreeable and inappropriate. RC's have to understand that the SysOp's under the command of his choice of NC, feel anxious about making a complaint to him, for fear of retaliation. The RC's (whether or not they agree with this) are going to have to set up a system, to allow not only the SysOp's who fall within their jurisdiction, but individuals who use (called users, in case you've forgotten) the numerous Nets within their regions. Like it or not, these RC's are going to have to become diplomats, and deal with the problems that are semi-rampart within FidoNet, today. Encouragement of new users, new systems (SysOp's) and users who do not feel totally alienated because of the I'm better than you attitudes that many SysOp's and Network Coordinators demonstrate towards them. The new or seasoned user who has been in some way wronged by a decision or judgment of some moderator or NC, has to be able to see a way to attain justice (even if no REAL wrong was performed) in what he/she perceives as an unjust system. Here is an example of what could happened (and has) happened, when the GOOD OL' BOY mentality is put in place. A user said something that the moderator of a certain local Echo didn't feel was in the proper spirit of his Echo. The Moderator, in an open message to the user, explained his rules for access to that particular Echo. The Moderator felt it was absolutely beyond the limits (in HIS Echo) for the user to denounce the way that messages were being written. He used the word damn in one of his posts, and out of the Echo he went. The user feeling this was not a valid reason to be excommunicated requested of the moderator that he be given another chance. The moderator said "no, and that's final." The user wanted to appeal the moderators decision as per the normal course of such petitions. He went to the NC, who informed him that if the moderator had banned him from that Echo (or any other) he (the NC) would support the moderator. Now, this scenario sounds familiar to many of you, and it also sounds proper. However, this user was extraordinarily upset about his banishment and requested help from another SysOp in the Net. What this SysOp learned was that the user had been denied the right of appeal, due to the fact that the moderator was not a FidoNet SysOp, and thus, the user was denied his right to appeal, by the fact the one level of the appeal process was not there You know, the appeal process that FidoNet members are supposed to have (?).

Here is a personal exemplification of what happens when the NC of a Net, takes a disliking to one of his SysOp's, and allows his (supposedly) impartial attitude to become predominating. I have been with FidoNet since 1985 (December 4, to be exact) and in all that time my node number has been 1:372/4. In 1991, due to numerous medical (thank you Uncle Ho & Co.) problems, and 992 days in the hospital I had to leave the local net, thus giving up my node number. When I returned to the (same) local net (and FidoNet) I requested my old node number back, as no one had been assigned that number. Not only did I not get that number, but I was enlightened to the fact that my request for a private node was disapproved. Of Course, due to FidoNet's antipathy for the .Pvt node flag. I really did understand that, but in view of the need for the private flag, and what it was requested for, I asked the NC to please reconsider. He didn't, but in all fairness to him, he did pass on my request to the Regional Coordinator. The RC after reading the reasons why the private flag was required, nullified the NC's decision, and allowed me a node number (1:372/136) to operate Vet_Net_South. Anyway, I think this action perhaps compiled with other idiosyncrasy has caused a rift between the NC and myself, and this is why, when I again requested that I be assigned my old node number (1:372/4) if for no other reason than old time sakes, I was informed that it would be a QUOTE: "make-work" thing and "I'm not inclined to do it." UNQUOTE. This type of attitude is not in the best interest of an already unhealthy FidoNet, and it is up to the RC's to terminate these kinds of practices. The antecedent is not a criticism of the NC I have mentioned, but is being utilized as an example of what sort of predilection that has crept into the ranks of FidoNet. These sort of incidences can do nothing for FidoNet, but enhance its demise. Furthermore, occurrences similar to the above, do nothing but harm to the individuals involved, thus doing nothing for the Net in which the misdeeds took place. I have been around long enough to not allow this method of muscle flexing to bother me. However, what of the new SysOp in a net? Will he/she be as constrained as I am? No, I think in all reality not. Once the new SysOp is faced with a situation similar to the above, and is informed by other SysOps in that Net, that the Regional Coordinator almost always sides with the NC in matters of this kind, he begins to feel the old FidoNet alienation, and either sits back and contemplates his/her revenge, or simply does the only other thing open to him/her. He/She drops out of the Net, opens up an account on the Internet, and FidoNet pays the price by another divestiture of personnel.

Enough of this, right? You have reached that point in reading where you have decided that a formal complaint for being excessively annoying is in order. Well, hell, go ahead, I need the rest, anyway. Just be aware of the fact the Chris Baker (editor of FIDONEWS) asked me for another article (as I promised) in public. What was that a great man once said? Oh, yea, I remember, "Forgive him Father for he knows not what he does." I probably misquoted Him somewhat, but what else would you expect from a guy who just pooped in his own mess kit, by partially trashing his NC. Oh hell, what could happen? No node number? So what! I can always put my head up my anus blow hot air, count some money, and everyone will think I'm Bill Gates. Apply for a new node number under the Gates acclaim, and sit back and laugh.

Just a footnote for all of you out there who are thinking about a way to assassinate me, via NetMail. My phone number is unpublished, my mailbox (snail mail type) has an anti explosive device built in. I have no E-Mail address on the Internet (gag), and all my daughters are grown up, gone away (with one exception) and impregnable. My dog isn't gay, and the parrot is a wino, and doesn't give a poop what you do to him or me. My wife is meaner than my old First Sergeant, and would probably kick your booty before you got to me. Anyway, the Veterans Administration has top priority when it comes to wasting me.

I have to say this before I leave you fellow SysOps, RC's, NC's. If I have offended anyone, in anyway. If the language I used was aberrant to any person. If what I said was a blow to your self esteem, and if after reading all that I wrote, you feel downhearted I say this from the bottom of my heart:

"I DON'T GIVE A DAMN!"......[smile]