Letters to the Editor

RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL
IN FIDONEWS DATED 15 JUNE 1998
By Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008

This letter is in response to the editorial that was included in the FidoNews issue on June 15, 1998.

I have been accused of selective quoting. The editor encourages you to re-read the editorials, making sure you compare the meanings of what the editor wrote to the selective quoting done in the reply.

Perhaps the editor should also re-read my reply from last week, in which I plainly state why selective quoting was necessary:

BH> The editorial contained several inaccuracies that I would like
BH> to talk about. Hopefully, the personal knowledge I have of some
BH> of the issues will be of more value than the best guesses of the
BH> editor.

To elaborate, since I have personal knowledge of only some of the comments made by the editor, it is only proper that I respond to only those comments. The items that I selected were the ones to which I have personal knowledge. The editor is free to state whatever views he likes on the other issues, regardless of accuracy, as far as I am concerned, as I have no way to counter information that I myself have not witnessed and verified.

There was, unfortunately, an inaccuracy in my reply from last week. Rather than make you guess, as the editor seems to have chosen to do, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight it. Here is an excerpt from last week's reply which contains my error:

ed> the RECC holding secret meetings and refusing to discuss matters
ed> with the ZEC, and other similarly puerile activities, make it
ed> odd that Ben and the RECC would not include their 'list of
ed> grievances' that they claim would prove their position...in a
ed> public setting.

[...]

BH> Also, we never refused to discuss this with the ZC. I think we
BH> each welcome discussing this with Bob Satti at any time.

My error was simply that I misread "ZEC" for "ZC" in the editor's editorial. My mistake.

What I said about discussing it with the ZC is true. Kohl, on the other hand, completely disappeared from our view as of late. Perhaps he's been too busy removing NCs and NECs, changing nodelist flags, etc. I do specifically remember a discussion between the RECs... Several RECs wanted to vote almost immediately after Kohl asked us how we would go about removing an NEC. Some of the other perhaps more patient, level-headed RECs suggested that we show an extra effort to try to work our differences out rather than giving up so quickly. After that, Kohl removed the NEC on his own, then he removed an NC, his REC quit because of his actions, and the disclosure of in-transit netmail issue happened (which he has recently apologized for, I hear). Then, we learn of a new R10C election (no doubt a chief reason he apologized, I believe) that due to its timing and the fact that only NCs (the NCs that Kohl hasn't removed from office, of course!) can vote in, has (pardon me, ed) "suspicious" written all over it. If this were happening in R19, I bet the editor would be having a field day! But it's in R10, so it's "politics as usual."

Region 10 matters shouldn't concern those outside of Region 10. They do, however, allow us to see what can happen when FidoNet as a whole lets someone get away with ignoring the "multiple hats" guideline.

Again, I speak only for myself. The views expressed in this letter to the editors do not necessarily reflect the views of any other RECC members. I will be back if I notice any other interesting things to comment about. As I write this, it's Saturday morning, so I hope you all have a great Father's Day!

-Ben Hamilton
FidoNet 1:124/7008
Internet: ben.hamilton@compconn.net