Articles

• On the Subject of Beer
• IP Nodes And The Nodelist
• Beating on the ThomToms

ON THE SUBJECT OF BEER
Thanks to Warren Bonner
wdbonner@pacbell.net

It was the accepted practice in Babylon 4,000 years ago that for a month after the wedding, the bride's father would supply his son-in-law with all the mead he could drink. Mead is a honey beer, and because their calendar was lunar based, this period was called the "honey month" or what we know today as the "honeymoon".

Before thermometers were invented, brewers would dip a thumb or finger into the mix to find the right temperature for adding yeast. Too cold, and the yeast wouldn't grow. Too hot, and the yeast would die. This thumb in the beer is where we get the phrase "rule of thumb".

In English pubs, ale is ordered by pints and quarts. So in old England, when customers got unruly, the bartender would yell at them to mind their own pints and quarts and settle down. It's where we get the phrase "mind your P's and Q's".

Beer was the reason the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. It's clear from the Mayflower's log that the crew didn't want to waste beer looking for a better site. The log goes on to state that the passengers "were hasted ashore and made to drink water that the seamen might have the more beer".

After consuming a bucket or two of vibrant brew they called aul, or ale, the Vikings would head fearlessly into battle often without armor or even shirts. In fact, the term "berserk" means "bare shirt" in Norse, and eventually took on the meaning of their wild battles.

In 1740, Admiral Vernon of the British fleet decided to water down the rum. Needless to say, the sailors weren't too pleased and called Admiral Vernon Old Grog, after the stiff wool grogram coats he wore. The term "grog" soon began to mean the watered down drink itself. When you were drunk on this grog, you were "groggy", a word still in use today.

Many years ago in England, pub frequenters had a whistle baked into the rim or handle of their ceramic cups. When they needed a refill, they used the whistle to get some service. "Wet your whistle", is the phrase inspired by this practice.

In the Middle Ages, "nunchion" was the word for liquid lunches. It was a combination of the words "noon scheken", or noon drinking. In those days, a large chunk of bread was called lunch. So if you ate bread with your nunchion, you had what we still today call a luncheon.

Things you didn't know about beer. <chuckle>
Ol'WDB

IP Nodes And The Nodelist
By Jack Yates; N3613C
1:3613/1275

Last week I noticed that a new node had been added to FidoNet, 1:345/4; Michael Wendell. Michael's node is IP (internet presence) only and cannot be called via Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS); Net 345 is in Hawaii, The Net Coordinator (NC) is Todd Cochrane who provides FidoNet echomail feeds to about 79 nodes and nets, and by doing so is a definite asset to our network and our hobby. Michael lives in Charlotte NC, within the service area of an active net.

Why, I questioned, did the N345C nodelist Michael in his net rather than contact the N379C or the R18C; I sent a netmail to Mr. Cochrane advising him that I had seen this addition to his net and stated that it was my opinion that it was his duty as a Net Coordinator to contact the proper NC and/or RC and advise those people that the SysOp was in need of a node number rather than to list him in a net thousands of miles from his residence. This message was CC'd to the N379C and R18C AS an "FYI." and posted in the echo, Z1C.

Mr. Cochrane's response was timely and stated (in substance) that "the SysOp had tried to find the NC but got no response; if someone wanted to get on the ball and list him, no problem."

The scenario should end right here as the node is being listed in the proper net, but it didn't; there are several members that feel that a node should be able to be listed where s/he gets his/her feed; traffic in Z1C has increased.

As someone's tagline states: "If you aren't catching flak, you are not on target." I must have made a direct hit; this is further evidenced by the actions of the RC's involved, and the Z1C.

The underlying question in a lot of this echomail is "Why didn't you just leave this alone?"

Because it's my opinion that this exemption would be harmful to FidoNet.

Other questions and statements have been, and my opinions are:

"Why can't he belong to that net as that's where he gets his feed."

I know that it's a thorn in the side of some of the membership but we *do* have a Policy document and all Coordinators are obligated to uphold it. Policy 4.07 says that the networks will be defined geographically, not according to where the node gets its feed.

"He's IP-only, how can he get his Host-Routed Netmail (HRN) if he's in a local net and the NC doesn't have IP capabilities."

Don't be so sure that the NC does not, or that an NEC cannot connect with an IP node. If either of these people are polling for mail via Internet FTP, chances are they are capable of connecting.

If the NC has no internet account or is not capable of FTP or e-mail transfers for any reason, the nodes HRN can be held at the RC-s node for pickup or delivery via FTP. Failing all of this, the RC can, by editing his route file, redirect the messages to the RC of the Region the node's net is in, thence to the node's feed.

"What difference does it make what net he's in? It's an increase in the membership. why make it difficult for him?"

What's difficult? The SysOp wants in, he can't find the Net Coordinator but the Sysop who runs the hub knows who it is and knows who the RC is as he has a nodelist; send a netmail to the NC or RC, advise the SysOp of the NC's address and coach him, if necessary, on how to submit the application.

"If we didn't have such narrow-minded people and all these rules, we would see a turn-around in the decline in FidoNet."

First, I'm not narrow-minded; When I have to read P4, I am looking for things that it does not say because if it isn't there, we are not told that we can't do it. Unfortunately, we are told how we must list our nodes.

Second, if we didn't have *any* rules, it would make little or no difference in the decline in Fido; local BBSs, as most anyone will tell you, are a thing of the past as the Internet beckons the users; the nodes in Z1 are leaving primarly due to the lack of callers, not because of the rules.

Third: Because Policy 4 says we cannot do this. There is a minority of SysOps that would choose to ignore Policy and do as they please, thinking that by doing so Policy 4 will be declared as unworkable or unnecessary. I don't think that this will make Policy go away.

Lets say that in your neighborhood there's a 4-way stop sign, the East-west road is well traveled, the North-South roadway is abandoned, there are barricades, grass grows up through the pavement. You ae on the East-West road, you know the North-South road is abandoned so you don't stop at the stop sign. Uh-oh! Blue lights, pull over, citation.

Now tell the judge that the stop sign is not needed, too restrictive, or outdated and see what it gets you. Or go to the Department of Public Works, the governing body of the political subdivision ad request the signs be removed and show them why they are no longer necessary and it's quite likely that the signs will go away.

At this writing, the Z1C is asking for input regarding a new Policy document; tell him what you want, substantiate your reasons for wanting it and see if it will be considered. While you wait, however, keep stopping at the stop sign.

"The IC has said that all geographical exemptions are pre-granted pending someone proving that the exception would cause harm to the net."

Yes, he did, but I feel that to allow an exemption for the reason given would be harmful as, if allowed to stand, a precedent has been established; "You allowed So-and-So to do it, you have to allow me to do it as well." Soon the nodelist becomes fragmented with listings scattered in all parts of the world as part of what were once local nets.

What if we have nodes that feed from, say net 000, who are in other Zones and have Zone 1 nodelistings? The NCs and RCs are responsible for the smooth operation of there Networks/Regions; how can one discharge that responsibility if there are nodes that are, say, in India, Australia, or other, perhaps non-English-speaking or `English as a second language' areas? I can almost hear the screams of (for instance) the Zone 2 Coordinator the first time a Zone 1 NC lists a node in Russia, or the Zone 3 Coordinator, should I list my point in Queensland as a member of net 3613, near Columbus, Georgia, USA, not to mention the howls of anguish from my RC if I were to do so.

I think a better method of accomodating IP-only nodes already exists under the auspices of the Zone Coordinator who has listed several in the 1:1/3000 block of the nodelist. There may be other workable options that can be implemented that don't conflict with current Policy. I urge those of the membership who are more aware than I am of the features and confines of IP-only nodes to work out a reasonable solution. Until then, I suggest that the *Cs accomodate new nodes as speedily and painlessly as possible, but within the bounds stated in Policy.

Beating on the ThomToms
Doug Myers

I doubt that I've had more response to any editorial than I did from last week's "Dr. Thom and Mr... hide?" While it's clear that I'd continue to draw more interest towards Fidonews with my muckraking than, say, Joe Jared would with his excellent work on the Internet listings... I wanted to save the editorial this week for another purpose. However, I feel that I owe readers a report on some of the response I've gotten.

* * *

On the "more bad news for Thom" side if the discussion, some observers have noted discrepancies in the ELISTing. ELADD.TXT is a report circulated with the ELISTING, and details additions by ECHOBASE, the elist software. The discrepancy noted is that at least some of the echoes acquired by Tom Knowles were listed in ELADD.TXT without a moderator, while other echoes acquired or added by other moderators were listed with that name.

Matt Bedynek has a working copy of ECHOBASE installed on his system, and reports that he could only simulate this discrepancy by burning the echoes manually, and feels from his experience that manual intervention would have been necessary on Thom's system too.

* * *

Though Thom LaCosta has been mostly silent since the controversy started, and has certainly not responded to anything written in Fidonews so far, he did post in Z1_Coordinator on the subject. He acknowledges that Tom Knowles accesses his sysop editor through a doorway program, and acknowledges that this would give Tom access to functions not normally available to users. However, he maintains that there has been no such abuse, and that user access is his business only.

* * *

Supporting Thom and Tom is one reader who prefers to remain anonymous. He maintains that Thom and Tom are separate individuals, though he wasn't free to tell how he knows that. This reader points out that there is insufficient evidence presented to prove this, and makes two observations:

1. That the echoes REC, Z1_BACKBONE, and ZEC have been turned over to proper moderators upon polite request.
2. That there has been no harm in any of Thom LaCosta's "playing" with the ELIST, even if any of the allegations are true. Certainly he has "played" less than his predecessor, Adrian Walker.