Editorial

It's interesting to see how things scurry about when light is cast on them.

The vocal minority in one instance, demanding an election, gets exactly what it asks for. What made it all the more interesting is that no plan, candidate or proposal was in place by this same vocal minority should they achieve their goal...which effectively indicates the level of 'deep thinking' that was behind their efforts, which have been going on for nearly a year.

The 'court of public opinion' is only as astute as the lynch mob that is behind it...it probably feels great to 'hang the bastard', but... then what? Wait another year, or accept the first hastily-assembled plan that they can come up with?

With regard to last week's editorial, I can only state that readers might want to re-read it carefully, and compare the meanings as written in opposition to the 'selective quoting' done in at least one response to it. Perhaps you will see that there is a wide difference between what you do read, and what you are told as to the meaning of what you read.

In essence, the concern floating about is that the editorials in the FidoNews are "too political". Fortunately, the vast majority seems to understand that in a free society, a free press is critical to its survival.

There needs to be someone or something to bring out the 'dark side' of the society and without being concerned about censorship, or there would be no room for dissent or even difference of opinion...even for that group that wants dissent or difference of opinion suppressed.

Consider what would happen if editorials were 'trimmed' to be "politically correct" or "inoffensive".

And, by the same token, the free press, as we have in FidoNet, must also publish what is submitted to it. The only restriction made is that the submissions meet the format criteria...justify left, margin of 70 characters, so that the publication software can handle the materials.

To that end, there has been a claim by John Souvestre that the FidoNews has refused to publish articles; further, that 'certain submissions' are refused acceptance by either NetMail or E-Mail, as part of some plan to 'censor' articles that I personally do not agree with.

Such a claim has either one of two purposes...the first, to point out that there actually has been censorship.

To my knowledge, since becoming Editor, there has been none.

If there has been, I ask that those who have submitted such articles to come forward and present both logs and articles since I have been Editor.

The second purpose, however, is probably the most likely one...to do little more than cast doubt on the sanctity of the FidoNews to FidoNet, and create controversy where none exists...

In other words, to play politics as usual, though I will stop short of claiming it is to protect his own commercial interests in FidoNet.

One of the key points in FidoNet is that the process itself should never be politicized or commercialized.

Individuals may be political in their efforts, but the actual functions and processes themselves should be above that...such as the granting or removal of FidoNet nodes, or the handling of the EchoList or EchoMail areas, among others.

When we allow the control of the EchoList to come under the sway of politics, or even be influenced by commercial entities, the idea of FidoNet will indeed die off.

The commercial entities exist because of FidoNet...we do not exist because of the commercial entities.

In other news, several EchoList replacement projects are currently in the works, the most public being that of Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352). At present, all projects are in 'testing mode'; I have been made aware of two specifically, and I've been reminded as well of the effort to hand over all EchoList functions to Zone 2 as part of an earlier proposal to merge the Zone 1 and Zone 2 ELIST functions, along with Zone 3.

But perhaps it is time for the various moderators to gather their collective thoughts on just *how* an EchoList should be established.

I would caution the moderators not to demand any specific proposal; rather, to suggest reasonable developments within the confines of technology and necessity within Fido, as well as rational administrative concerns on both sides, lest we see yet another imposed administrative plan from persons with 'vested interests'.

Let's see if cooperation and communication still exist in FidoNet before we start pushing weight around.

-zf-

### 30 ###