Columns

Dear Editorbeing,

This article is submitted by Doc Logger (163/110) who was busy drinking Absinthe on the slopes of Gornergraat. Across the valley, the Matterhorn rises in purple splendour and below, chubby gentlemen in leather training pants are blowing elongated horns which produce sounds akin to moose in full rut.

Roll da flic, Zorch....

Dear Reverend Visage,

Being stuck in Switzerland in July has many drawbacks, not the least of which is that the charming international tourists who are busily photographing everything in sight. Even the bronze frog which spouts into a fountain in Zermatt has started to develop a squint from the incessant camera flash discharges.

The Snooz was rather chunky last week including two articles by Kohl whose ghostwriter made their presence obvious by the lack of spelling mistakes and mangled grammar. Even His Zorchness' editorial was a monument of disingenuousness. It would probably be unkind to mention that His Zorchness has been in high dungeon lately over a supposed "second" elist robot program. What makes Zorch's editorial bellowing more amusing is that he forgot to disclose his personal interest in the other elist proposal. Mercifully, any newspaper writer who has a conflict of interest takes pains to make disclosures and we can look forward to seeing Zorch correcting his inadvertent omission of that relevant fact.

I note that Kohl's ghostwriter had this cheesy excuse for his disclosure of in transit netmail. "There were two complaints brought up. One was dismissed, the other the was explained and apologized for. Someone sent me netmail and I cc'd Bob Satti." Actually, they did not send netmail to Kohl, they sent it to another system which passed through Kohl's system. Kohl extracted the contents on the way through, responded to it, revealed its contents, and then made the fatuous claim that it was a technical glitch resulting from the way his system is set up. If Kohl is to be believed ( a dubious proposition) then he must have been disclosing all intransit netmail to Bob Satti. Satti, being a man of few words, has studiously avoided confirming whether Kohl's version of reality is correct. Kohl cites the other instance where he was caught disclosing in transit netmail as being "dismissed" which is not to say that the act didn't happen.

In Kohl's second alleged article wherein he uses the word "diatribes" which is well beyond his actual vocabulary grasp, Kohl winds his way through a cloud of smoke without bothering to deny that his vendetta against Ruth Argust results from a pathetic incident over a horse. I am quite willing to post a retraction if Kohl can send me a correction as to the facts.

At the risk of writing a tautological article that references past Snoozs, I was disappointed by Andrea Santos' article which advocates the equivalent of designing a camel by striking a committee charged with designing a horse. The issue is not the dispersion of titles and responsibilities for the Snooz, but the simple need for people to submit content. Creating nine new admin Snooz positions will do no good at all unless those individuals are actually writing copy. If there is a criticism to be made of His Zorchness, it is the fact that unlike previous editors of the Snooz, he does not appear to be actively soliciting articles. As an example, I'd dearly love to see an article from some of our Russian brethren describing the changes over the last decade that have fostered the incredible growth of fidonet. I'd also like to see an articulate discussion of the Zone2 policy debate which seems to be surfacing in the ZCC echo.

On the matter of his Zorchness' policy complaints against Ruth Argust, it is simply amazing that he was joined by three other cretins who filed identical complaints. Knowles, George Kuhl, and Dan Sherman should have a deserved place in the Fidonet Hall of Shame for lending their names to the venal actions of Frezberg in this matter. There is something truly rotten in the state of Denmark if these idiots are the NCs of which anyone in Fidonet could be proud. It is small wonder that the stench of Kohl's presence pervades Region10 considering the low quality of the NCs that he has appointed. If ever there was a case to be made for the fact that Peefour only arms socially maladroit morons, a reading of Frezberg's policy complaint would suffice to settle the argument.

Yo Zorch, did you vote twice in the ZEC election?

I have some interesting quotes for this week's column. The first is taken from a message that Bob Kohl sent out to his loyal fartcatchers in Region 10:

"You'll note that not every NC and NEC in Reg 10 is getting this note. I'm sending it mainly to the key group of Admin folks in Reg 10 that I've worked with these past years to rebuild and revive Reg 10 or that have shown concern for the smooth operation of the Region and their own nets. It is also this group that I expect to keep this note within the group.
...

We are Reg 10, let's make sure that everyone is aware of this, including Bob Satti. And as a statement from the NC's of Reg 10, I sincerely hope you'll support and sign a PC against Ruth when it gets put into motion. While I could have easily done it myself, I sincerely think it sets a bad precident for my to do so or to be involved in it directly."

That gem was written by Kohl in an effort to garner support for a Policy Complaint campaign organized by His Zorchness. The following quote is very long, but well worth including because it contains the entire text of Bob Duckworth's ruling on Zorch's policy complaint. (For those concerned about the niceties, I have received Bob Duckworth's permission to quote his ruling in full) Read and weep...

* * * * *

"Thu 25 Jun 98 22:21
By: Bob Duckworth, * *Bob's Duck Pond (2004/209)
Re: Policy Complaint filed by you against Ruth Argust
Original to: Zorch Frezberg (1:205/1701)

Zorch Frezberg,

It is extremely disturbing that I have to send this message at all. With your being a Network Coordinator I am sure you understood the action you were taking when you filed a Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust. Per Policy 4.07 a Policy Complaint is not an action to be taken lightly.

Your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust is rejected in total.

The opening portion of your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust is a very disjointed mish-mash and very hard to follow. However, Ms. Argust did rebut your statements, and also pointed out that some of the submitted documents have also been tampered with (ie. missing subject lines and appended orgin lines.)

A single netmail tittled "official inquiry" does not constitute an earnest effort to resolve a problem. Ms. Argust submitted a copy of a message in which she replied to you in the hopes of resolving the problem between the two of you. She claims that you never responded to the questions she raised in netmail in reponse to your "offical inquiry" netmail, and you failed to provide any proof that you did in fact respond. You did include the netmail that she replied to your "offical inquiry" netmail with so by all indications, you in fact were the one who failed to resolve the problems. In hopes that you did indeed follow policy and continue your attempt to resolve the problem, I did read all the echomail which you enclosed, and did not see her questions to you answered via that medium either, although she did in fact provide evidence of why her name was presented during the EMSI portion of mailer handshaking. Reading through Policy 4.07 it does not say that the informal attempts to resolve a problem prior to the filing of a policy complaint must be made in private. That you failed to try complete a resolution informally can not be blamed on the fact that she posted anything in the echoes when in fact you could have netmailed her and asked that she work with you only via netmail on what you considered to be problems.

I reject this policy complaint from you in total because of your failure to continue your attempts to resolve the problems. I am also presenting my findings on each of your separate charges.

zf> = CHARGE 1
zf> = Violation of Netmail confidentiality under section 2.1.6.2; specifically, the release of netmail for the purpose of annoying others, and in this case, involving others not in the chain of appeal, as defined in Section 9.1, last para of Policy 4.07; further, that such release was done in order to make improper accusations and undue disruption of FidoNetconstitutes EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR.
zf>

I find in favor of Ms. Argust on charge 1.

The netmail which you sent to her with the subject line of "offical inquiry" was not marked as confidential. Since you failed to mark this message as confidential, Polcy 4.07 Section 2.1.6.2 shall apply here, specifically where it states

"The issue of private mail which is addressed to you is more difficult than the in-transit question treated in the previous section. A common legal opinion holds that when you receive a message it becomes your property and you have a legal right to do with it what you wish. Your legal right does not excuse you from annoying others.

In general, sensitive material should not be sent using FidoNet. This ideal is often compromised, as FidoNet is our primary mode of communication. In general, if the sender of a message specifically requests in the text of the message that the contents be kept confidential, release of the message into a public forum may be considered annoying."

It is clear in policy that the message in question was hers to do with what she wished. If the public release of your netmail was annoying to you, it is not covered by policy since you did not take the proper measure to prevent her from posting your message in a public echo by clearly marking the message as confidential.

Even more important, I did not see any proof that Ruth Argust disclosed the netmail in question. All I saw in her post was the header and the cc:'s of the messages. There was no disclosure at all of the body text.

zf> = CHARGE 2
= 'As indicated in the logs submitted by the various NCs of Region 10, it is clear that the system Ruth Argust used to mail out from was representing itself as 1:2004/0. Ruth has offered several clarifications in an effort to explain this, but has not explained the one most significant problem; whyshe felt it necessary to register the software as 1:2004/0, since she and Gerry claim that their net has elections (See CHARGE2.001).The fact that the clarifications are specious is obvious...thenode in question will consistently display itself as 1:2004/0 regardless of who the NC is, and will interfere in mail routing and distribution upon their removal/departure from the posts that they hold.

This failure, along with the fact that numerous mailer programs cannot distinguish between a multi-line and a single-line node, as seen in the attached logs, clearly shows the connecting mailer as being 1:2004/0. There is no specific mailer in place which lists Gerry Calhoun as NC2004, operating 1:2004/0 as the nodelist defines.

This is indicated in the various logs included in the evidence file (See CHARGE2.004, CHARGE2.005, CHARGE2.006 and CHARGE2.007).

This would be no significant matter, and likely to be dismissed, per Ruth's numerous claims that "this is just the way that the software is set up", save for _one_ salient point:

In the recent Z1 EchoMail Coordinator election, Ruth Argust had submitted her vote, presenting herself as "1:2004/0", and Gerry Calhoun had submitted his vote, presenting himself as "1:2004/205" (See CHARGE2.002 and CHARGE2.003; note that CHARGE2.003 is the roster of voting nodes from the Election Coordinator).

Likewise, as can be noted in the log files, it does not matter to which phone number/node that one is connected to...all nodes on the connection present themselves as "1:2004/0" and with Ruth Argust as the sysop of the node reserved for the N2004C, without regard for the reality of the situation. This can be seen in the log files, as the "home node", "Node #2" and "Node #3" all present as "1:2004/0" on connection, and all as "Ruth Argust".

Under Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, the NC is normally responsible for the exactness of the network nodelist segment, and also may not delegate the responsibility to mediate disputes. Given the nature of the identity problem with the /0 node, and with regard to who the system is operated by, as well as the chaos which such a system identification can cause, is clearly disruptive now, and will be disruptive to the smooth operation of FidoNet, the Region and their own network in the near future. Such disruption is in violation of Policy 4.07, Sections 1.2.1.1 (identifying users), section 2.1.3 (identifying who is responsible for entering traffic), and Section 1.2.8, second para (smooth operation).

Since the system in question was co-operated by the then-NC of Net 2004, the above should have been well known and familiar as a part of the knowledge of Policy 4.07 that all Network Coordinators are to be familiar with. However, as the actual software is registered by someone who is not nor has ever been the Network Coordinator, as well as co-opting the reserved address for the Net Coordinator of Network 2004, the action is now the responsibility of the node operator...which is listed as being Ruth Argust.

Such actions and efforts by Ruth Argust do constitute EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR.'
zf>

Zorch Frezberg, you have not provided proof that Ruth Argust sent mail out from the Fido address of 1:2004/0. During handshaking in the emsi portion, the line SYSOP: Ruth Argust was presented.

Note that Policy 4.07 is very clear in sections;
1 Overview
1.2.1 Individual Systems and System Operators
1.2.1.1 Users
2.1.3 Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node
1.2.8 (second paragraph)
1.3.4 Nodelist
that the system operator is defined by the nodelist.

Your statement that the system software is registered to 1:2004/0 is not backed up by the included file CHARGE2.001. What I see in CHARGE2.001 are statments by Ms. Argust that the mailer software is registered in her name. She further states the the system the software operates on is co-operated by Gerry Calhoun and presents the addresses of 1:2004/0, 1:2004/200 and 1:2004/201. Nowhere does she state the software is registered as 1:2004/0. In Ms. Argust's reply to the Policy Complaint, she included a message from the software author with what must be placed in the sysop name field for the software to operate in the registered mode.

You further claim that the software will always present itself as 1:2004/0 without any proof to this fact. The addresses for the system which Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun co-operate can be changed at will. This claim is based solely upon your conjecture and is not backed by any evidence you have submitted. Policy 4.07 is very clear the charges must be supported by evidence. For a NC to make such a claim and provide no evidence, displays an obvious lack of understanding of Policy 4.07.

After Zorch Frezberg's netmail message with the subject line of "offical inquiry" was received, a change was made to the system which had the address of 1:2004/0 to present SYSOP: Gerry Calhoun NODE X (where X is the node connected to) in addiction to SYSOP: Ruth Argust. This shows that Ms. Argust did attempt to rectify what Zorch Frezberg had a problem with, although Frezberg did not specify what portion of Policy 4.07 mandates what must be presented during emsi handshaking.

Ms. Argust claims the system in question had been functioning in the same manner well over two years. During that time, she says she had never received any other comments as to the way the system presented itself. That she reconfigured the system after your concerns were voiced shows that she made an earnest and honest attempt at resolving the issue. The fact that Zorch Frezberg never responded back after Ms. Argust changed the manner her software was setup shows that Zorch Frezberg did not attempt to resolve the issue. Zorch Frezberg also failed to state what section of Policy 4.07 was being violated by presenting SYSOP: Ruth Argust during the emsi handshake.

Zorch Frezberg's "salient point" is based upon the fact that Mr. Belcke recorded the vote as orginating from the wrong system. Mr. Belcke was in error in recording the vote and Ms. Argust attempted through netmail to correct the way the vote was recorded. The blame for Mr. Belcke to not correct the vote after he was in fact informed of his error does not reflect on Ms. Argust. Ms. Argust did include copies of her exchange with Mr. Belcke with only the candidate names and her password blocked out and Mr. Belcke's replies.

Zorch Frezberg, you should read the Policy 4.07 in its entirity and not just read it so that you can file a Policy Complaint. Policy 4.07 clearly states that the system operator is defined by the nodelist. Zorch Frezberg, you have failed to show where Policy 4.07 or any approved FTS document mandates what MUST be shown during emsi handshaking or in a mailers logs.

Zorch Frezberg, you claim that there was an "identity" with the /0 node in net 2004. However, Policy is quite clear as to who the /0 node belongs to as Policy 4.07 clearly states that the nodelist defines who operate what nodes. You further state "Such disruption is in violation of Policy 4.07, Sections 1.2.1.1 (identifying users), section 2.1.3 (identifying who is responsible for entering traffic), and Section 1.2.8, second para (smooth operation)." Yet, those same sections clearly state that the nodelist defines the operator of a node.

The system in question was and is co-operated by the then NC. This was in fact the system the then NC used to perform his NC duties. Being the system that did such duties, it rightly used the /0 node number. The node operator of the system that presented the /0 address has never been Ruth Argust, since the node operator per Policy 4.07 is defined by the nodelist issued by the I.C. and had always been listed to Gerry Calhoun until his removal from that position.

You are correct in one small statement in this CHARGE 2. That is that the NC is to be familiar with Policy 4.07. However, your lack of knowledge in regards to this charge inparts a great deal of questioning in regards to your knowledge of Policy 4.07.

I totally reject and dismiss CHARGE 2 and clear Ms. Argust of any wrong doing in regards to CHARGE 2 and Policy 4.07 for the following reasons.

1. The netmail with the subject "official inquiry" does not appear to be an attempt to resolve a problem, rather it appears to be an investigation. After Ms. Argust changed what her system presented upon emsi handshaking and contacted Zorch Frezberg back, Zorch Frezberg did not continue to attempt to resolve his "perceived" problem. Therefore, I can not find that an attempt was made to resolve this in an informal manner. In fact, I find that Zorch Frezberg has not made any comment on what was presented after Ms. Argust changed what was presented during the emsi handshake after Zorch Frezberg expressed his concerns. Therefore, I can only conclude that the problem was resolved. If a problem is resolved between two sysops, there is therefore no need for a policy complaint.
2. Zorch Frezberg failed to state what section of Policy 4.07 or what part of any FTS document was violated by the presentation of SYSOP: Ruth Argust during emsi handshaking. It being that Zorch Frezberg is a member of the standing FTSC, he should be familiar with the FTS documents and been able to provide such evidence.
3. Zorch Frezberg has failed to provide what section of Policy 4.07 states what must be present in a mailers logfile, therefore the mailer logfiles are not relevent in this issue.
4. Zorch Frezberg as a Network Coordinator should be familiar enough with Policy 4.07 to know that the nodelist as issued by the I.C. defines who a system operator is.
5. Zorch Frezberg has failed to present a single message signed by Ruth Argust as Network 2004 Coordinator.

zf> ' = CHARGE 3
In addition to the above, the constant posting of mail intended for the discussion of administrative functions in Region 10 has been consistently cross-posted out of netmail and Region 10 administrative conferences, in an effort to "expose" matters in Region 10.

However, the messages posted to national and international echoes are also with respect to questions of character and ability for other posts and actions, with the use of Region 10 as no more than a cover for harrassment and calls for interference.

The sheer volume of mail, both in echomail and netmail, has started a self-regenerative loop with rumor feeding rumor, and rumor then becoming "fact" in the minds of many. For example, there has been a consistently posted comment that a "netmail smear campaign" was begun by Bob Kohl; yet no evidence of such a message has been made available, and all inquiries for a copy of it have been fruitless. Everyone seemed to have "heard of it", but not one individual or group of individuals has been able to demonstrate a copy of such messages.

Likewise, as the message is supposedly between other individuals and sent to Argust and Calhoun, the disclosure of such contents is in violation of Policy 4.07, Section 2.1.6.1, as no Policy Complaint has been attached to such a message, and by their own description, the message was sent as NetMail, and not as EchoMail.

This portion of the Policy Complaint will be conceded and withdrawn, provided proper evidence is shown that the so-called "netmail smear" message was posted as EchoMail or as 'private mail' intended to keep a 'sysop-only' echo restricted.

However, as to the portion in which excessive echomail and netmail is being generated for no other purpose than to interfere in the ability of the Region Coordinator to perform duties properly, I will not withdraw that portion of the Policy Complaint, and will carry it forward regardless. The specific harm, per Section 1.3.5, is that the efforts of Argust and others have caused Region 10 to be unable to locate and obtain an acceptable and qualified Regional EchoMail Coordinator. The annoyance is now excessive in that the failure to appoint a new REC has become a 'rallying point' in use by Argust and others in a new wave of harrassment, despite being caused by the efforts of Argust and others (See CHARGE3.ZIP, please note summation in CHARGE3.000).

Further, that Ruth Argust has made the effort and succeeded in posting to a Regional administrative echomail conference that she had been specifically removed is a more clear indication that her interests are specifically for the purpose of disruption of Region administration; significantly, since this requires the Regional Coordinator take additional actions to prevent any further incursions, and thus adding to his duties and efforts. Inteference on the Network, Regional and Zone levels indicates EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR (See CHARGE3.042).'
zf>

CHARGE 3 deals with echomail. While some points dealing with echomail are mentioned in Policy 4.07, the points you, Zorch Frezberg, bring up in CHARGE 3 are not applicable here.

2.1.6.1 deals with IN-TRANSIT netmail. In reading your evidence for CHARGE 3, I do not see that Ms. Argust posted any netmail at all, let alone any IN-TRANSIT netmail. If she had posted netmail addressed to her and sent to her, it was, therefore, her personal property to do with what she pleased.

1.3.5 Deals with excessively annoying behavior. Zorch Frezberg, you claim that Ms. Argusts posts are excessively annoying because they are preventing Bob Kohl, the R10C, from performing his duties. Yet, you have not presented a single message from Bob Kohl that states such. You also state that talking about regional issues creates controversy. If such actions create controversy, then perhaps it is time to look at the issues.

You further state that Ms. Argust posted to a regional Administrative echo from which she was specifically removed, yet you have not provided any proof for the claim that she was removed from this echo.

I hereby reject and dismiss the claims against Ms. Argust in regards to CHARGE 3 and do not find her guilty of any wrong doing in respect to Policy 4.07 and CHARGE 3 for the following reasons.

1. You, Zorch Frezberg, have not provided any proof of any attempts to resolve this problem before filing this policy complaint as spelled out in Section 9.1 of Policy 4.07.
3. You, Zorch Frezberg, have provided no proof that Ms. Argust was guilty of disclosing IN-TRANSIT netmail per your charge of violation of section 2.1.6.1. I see no netmail disclosed in any of the many posts you have presented.
4. You, Zorch Frezberg, seem to have this CHARGE 3 confused with CHARGE 1 where you claim she disclosed private and confidential mail and offer as evidence CHARGE1.002. I state again that she did not in fact disclose anything other than who received the mail since she quoted only the message header and the cc: list. Her quote stopped right after the private and confidential per Policy 4.07 line and she did not quote any of the message text.
5. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to prove that the behavior of Ms. Argust in any of the echomail had anything to do with preventing the RC from fulfilling his duties.

zf> ' = CHARGE 4
= The fact that a number of public posts have been made by both Argust and Calhoun that they have no access to the Region 10 administrative echoes, and are thus locked out of any forum to present their case is proven false, based on a NetMail sent to the RHub Sysop, M Hernandez, at 1:10/2, in which Calhoun asked for all passwords to be removed from that system which allowed connection to his own (See CHARGE4.001).

That Calhoun would ask is a clear indication that he is indeed aware of the other sources for the administrative echoes to be available; that he still denies his ability to access shows a contradiction that he has not been able to clarify adequately. Clearly, in EchoMail, Argust and Calhoun are claiming that they have no access to administrative echomail in Region 10.

Yet in the NetMail shown in CHARGE4.001, Calhoun declares he wants an already available connection to remove all passwords, making it impossible for him to connect to an available source for those same administrative echomail areas for Region 10.

The obvious problem is that Calhoun as well as Argust are maintaining a public image that is in direct opposition to what they know to be true...that a connection exists.

Please note; the point is not that no connection exists, but that one was available to Net 2004, but was deliberately turned off and refused, at the same time as claims were made that no such connection was available to Net 2004.

As with Charge #3, this seeming contradiction serves little purpose than to bring about unwarranted traffic for no other purpose than to harrass and interfere with the smooth operation of Region 10, by interfering with the duties of the Regional Coordinator, both directly and indirectly.

By lying over the issue of connectivity, a deliberate action as opposed to an honest mistake, the fabrication becomes an intentional one, and thus excessively annoying behavior in that the action affects not one or two nodes but an entire Region of sysops, and thus affecting the smooth operation of Region 10.

While the specifics against Gerry Calhoun are best addressed by the Regional Coordinator, that such actions were both condoned and carried out by Ruth Argust in an effort to both diminish and harrass the administration and function of Region 10 necessitates that a Policy Complaint is in order.

By affecting the RC in the performance of duties, it is the responsibility of the RC to take action against an offending node; when the node is a Network Coordinator under the Regional Coordinator, it is clear that the Network Coordinator is no longer able to hold that position. As Gerry Calhoun has been replaced as the N2004C, that avenue is already dealt with and now moot.

However, when it is a sysop that pushes the envelope in a manner to take action to disrupt the administration of the Region, it is the duty of a Network Coordinator to take actions necessary to insure that a clear 'line of communication' exists between the Network and the Regional Coordinators, and it is necessary to adopt a stand of "zero tolerance" towards behavior designed and taken for no less a purpose than to disrupt the function of the Region; thus Ruth Argust is charged within the confines of Policy 4.07, Sections 1.3.5, for what is EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR.'
zf>

Charge 4 also deals with echo mail content. I fail to see where you, Zorch Frezberg, have included a single message from Ms. Argust to in your documents submitted for this charge backup this claim of excessively annoying behavior. In fact the only thing you submitted to backup this charge was a single netmail from Gerry Calhoun, asking that all passwords be removed from a system that presents the address of 1:10/2. This is not a policy complaint against Mr. Calhoun, rather, it is one against Ms. Argust. The sole evidence you have submitted with this charge has also been tampered with since Mr. Calhoun does not append an orgin line with the address of 1:205/0 to his netmail messages. You also make the claim that the actions of Ms. Argust have prevented the R10C from fullfilling his duties as a Regional Coordinator. You have failed to present any evidence to backup this claim. You have not submitted a single message from Bob Kohl, R10C, that states this fact. I only have to rely upon your statements that the R10C can not fullfill his duties because of the actions of Ms. Argust in echomail. You have once again neglected in CHARGE 4 to provide any proof that simple basic communication between yourself and Ms. Argust took place in regards to CHARGE 4 before your action of filing this complaint.

CHARGE 4 is hereby dismissed in total for any and all of the following reasons:

1. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to submit any proof that you attempted to resolve this matter with Ms. Argust before filing this policy complaint.
2. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to provide any verifiable evidence per Policy 4.07, section 9.1 that states in part "Complaints must be accompanied with verifiable evidence, generally copies of messages; a simple word-of-mouth complaint will be dismissed out of hand." You sole item of evidence to back up your claim against Ms. Argust, was a netmail writen by Gerry Calhoun which had been tampered with. Nothing was submitted that was written by Ms. Argust or that even mentions Ms. Argust.
3. You, Zorch Frezberg, have even failed to show that Ms. Argust was NOT denied access to any regional echoes as she claimed. As the accuser it is up to you to provide the proof of any crime. In this charge the crime that you claim is that she said she did not have access to regional admin echoes. A simple netmail from her uplink to remove passwords with an unrelated node does not provide such proof. Ms. Argust had indeed questioned Bob Kohl, the R10C, in echoes about her access and feed to regional echoes but in particular the regional SYSOP echo. Had Mr. Kohl responded in the echoes that she did indeed have access and you could have provided that message, then that could have been admitted to evidence to her having access to the echoes. Mr. Kohl however did not respond to her questions that I ever saw though. In fact, Mr. Kohl has sent netmail to me as N2004C stating that Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun can not in fact have access to the regional echoes, and has stated in the R10 admin echoes themselves that Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun are not allowed access. When I asked Ms. Argust if she did in fact ever get a notice from Mr. Kohl himself on the matter, she stated she never has in respect to the regional sysop echo which is the echo that she was questioning as I saw it in the national echoes. I could in fact send you copies of the messages I have seen by Mr. Kohl regarding this if you require them, but since this policy action is not against myself, I can see no reason to furnish you with them.

zf>' These charges do not rest lightly, nor is this document posted frivolously; it is posted in the sincere effort that Ruth Argust understand the consequences of her actions and the affect that they have on others who care not for her polarization of attitudes in FidoNet.

Zorch Frezberg, I fail to agree with you in regards to the action of your filing this policy complaint not being frivolous. In fact I find it quite trivial, especially in regards to your CHARGE 2. As a member of the FTSC, I would have expected you to be able to provide proof of what was violated during the EMSI handshake if in fact anything was violated. One of the people that you in fact sent the policy complaint to for them to file for themselves in fact is even more guilty of any perceived violation than Ms. Argust. Please note the segment of my FD log below:

Log of Bob Duckworth, 1:2004/209 and 1:2004/0

---------- Tue 23 Jun 98, FD 2.12.SW
+ 19:42:16 Event 0-@
+ 21:14:54 Calling Region 10 Echomail Coordinato, 1:10/1, 1-510-841-9481
= 21:15:18 CONNECT 14400/ARQ
+ 21:15:22 Sci-Fido II, World's Oldest SF BBS, Berkeley, CA, 1:161/84
~ 21:15:22 SysOp: Richard Knowles Ja
~ 21:15:22 Using: Opus 1.73
21:15:22 sType: FTS-6/ZedZap
* 21:15:24 Sent I:\FD212\PACKETS\000A0001.REQ; 7b, 3 CPS
+ 21:15:31 Mail transfer completed
$ 21:15:31 To 1:10/1, 0:13, 0.

I do have full logging turned on but the system that answers the phone at 1-510-841-9481, which is listed in the current nodelist.170 as the phone number of the system operated by Jan Murphy, 1:10/1, Region 10 Echomail Coordinator does not present the AKA of 1:10/1. It also does not present Jan Murphy as being the system operator, rather it lists Richard Knowles Ja as shown above.

The policy complaint in total shows one thing very clearly. That is that you, Zorch, did not undertake this policy action with the intent of making sure policy was enforced but you filed it because you had disagreements with another sysop and are merely attempting to use policy to silence her for the sake of your own agenda.

With this response to you, I am also sending a message to Bob Satti, requesting that he grant a change of venue should Ms. Argust request one if you take this complaint to appeal since the Regional Coordinator is clearly involved in at least two of the four charges.

Bob Duckworth, 1:2004/0
Network 2004 Coordinator"

* * * * *

Visage, I don't think I would want to bet long odds on whether Bob Duckworth's courage in writing that decision will go "unrewarded" by Kohl and his legion of trolls. It does much to explain why syncophants like Knowles are so desparate to keep Region10 nonsense "in the family" because the reek of their actions doesn't look too appealling when exposed to daylight.

I must go Visage, the cable car operator has announced the last run down to Zermatt and I can only hope that another U.S. jet doesn't clip the cables on the way down. Your secretary is in fine fettle and has left a wake of broken arms on the Italians who have mistakenly tried to pinch her ass.

Regards,
Doc Logger
stuck in Switzerland