Editorial

An interesting week...no?

Thanks go out first to Jim Barchuk, who has managed to fix the problem with the mail server at the FidoNews web site at http://www.fidonews.org. With that, a number of articles and E-Mail came tumbling forth, to be published in this issue, as well as adding a bit of delay to the publication this week through volume and the ANSI characters to boot throwing the software out of whack...

Just as interesting is the selection process used to implement the ELIST in Zone 1...not so much the technical aspect, but the lack of investigation into the claims being put forth.

Like a good illusionist, the audience is drawn to the object that the illusionist wants you to see, while making you forget the rational part of your mind that wants to know how it is done...or why.

It's called 'misdirection'.

One has to ask why such claims are being made by the RECC, when the person behind the effort has yet to be asked a single question about the content.

And, I suppose, it goes to further their own agenda which has yet to be as fair or open as they have collectively claimed it to be.

But, for now, Thom LaCosta has been named by the RECC as the new EchoList Coordinator in Zone 1. Our congratulations to his appointment...as defined in existing rules and procedures.

And, as it may be interesting to note, a long-time critic of this Editor puts forth the idea of a change to the way in which the FidoNews is published.

Hmmmmmmm...

Interesting that someone from a society where free speech and free press makes such suggestions, while another reader from a society in which such freedoms have been restricted in the past asks for the FidoNews to remain the same.

If nothing else, it makes for an interesting contrast in what is and is not taken for granted when one lives in a society where freedom has never been so constrained.

Other than this, there is little news that came forward this week, though we do have a message from Peter Karlsson, who apparently has better connections to the FTSC as a 'member in limbo' than I have as a full member...but inquiries into the reasons why still go unanswered.

How odd.

And just as interestingly, we hear from the "Zone 7" members...a sign that there is still hope for FidoNet, if only they can be allowed to develop as their own Zone.

Added in here is another reminder to all who submit articles to the FidoNews that the "flush left, margin 70" standard is the one thing that will guarantee that your submission will be edited to meet. Among the submissions in the 'flood', only two were compliant to the FidoNews specifications.

And, lastly, the issue of advertising in the FidoNews...

I asked for particulars on this some time back in the FIDONEWS echo and received some comments, but recent events (and submissions) have caused me to re-open the request for comments.

Interestingly enough, some of the comments suggest that I am asking only to justify doing this...especially in the light of one such request offering to sponsor or even buy advertising space in the FidoNews. There has even been a threat to stop distribution of the FidoNews based on the same innuendo and assumptions that Fido has become trademarked for of late, rather than on any basis of fact.

More on this in a moment...

The reality, as those who have made the innuendo that has become so very typical in FidoNet of late, is that I would like to formulate a specification for myself and future Editors (if any) to operate from as to which types of advertising are 'acceptable' to FidoNet sysops.

Should the FidoNews reject ALL advertising? Should it accept only that advertising which is directly involving FidoNet, to the exclusion of such things as TCP/IP-capable hybrids which also incorporate Fido technology (programs such as ARGUS, TransX and iFTP come to mind)?

Or should the Editor decide on a submission-by-submission basis as to what may be of interest to FidoNet sysops?

The issue of payment for advertising in FidoNews is without merit, since FidoNews is free, distributed for free and there would be no possible way to determine who to pay any such fees to, let alone for what purpose they would be used for...or by whom.

In simpler words, no paid advertising will be done in the FidoNews.

If any company submits software for review, no 'quid pro quo' is to be expected, nor is one offered other than a legitimate and earnest assessment of the value and usefullness of the software...and even then, it would be more likely to be turned over to another sysop to perform the review itself, as chosen by the Editor...to do otherwise is to merely open the door for a 'ringer' to be used.

At least, lacking any more suggestions, this is the intended base for the proposed advertising specification.

But, the question still remains...and although I have many responses, including those sent to be posted here, the direction is not there.

• Should there be no advertisements?
• Should there only be Fido-based advertisements?
• Or is there a 'middle ground' that is acceptable to all that meets and satisfies as many as is possible?

And, in reference to the pause above, how very interesting that for a 'tabloid-style' publication, which is 'losing readers' for being so 'biased', that several companies have decided that the FidoNews is of sufficient distribution to be 'useful' to them.

In all, an interesting week...no?

-zf-

### 30 ###