Letters to the Editor

• Bully for the Editor!
• Is There Support for MAC?
• This is a HOBBY!

Bully for the Editor!
Response to Editorial
Email from "Mike"
chasers1@intergrafix.net

ch> Thanks for your response. I appreciate you may not agree with
ch> some of it; and that is certainly your perogative. However,
ch> maybe your disagreement is because I wasn't specific enough.
ch> Care to discuss the points you disagree with? I'm open to have
ch> you prove me wrong. (Grin) Having someone to intelligently
ch> discuss the matter with would certainly be a treat.

dm> I disagreed on three points, one of which may change over more
dm> specific information. I'll just list them here, as I already
dm> wrote an editorial discussing them at length... what the hell,
dm> I'll send you and advance copy of the editorial. That gives
dm> you a chance to offer rebuttal in the same issue :)

> ----------
>
> Bullies
> Doug Myers

> Sunday Morning I received an article from "Mike" (full name not
> given) on "The Bullies of Fidonet." It's an article I don't
> fully agree with - but since Fidonews should be open to all
> viewpoints, I publish it without regret. The free press nature
> of Fidonews, however, does not prevent me (nor anyone else)
> from presenting an opinion on the issue, however.

> First of all, I sympathize with Mike in his plight. I would
> imagine that he really is receiving all the unkind messages he
> says he is. I'm not following the particular conferences he
> cites nor the discussion in progress, but the arguments between
> pro-life and pro-choice on abortion matters isn't exactly new
> nor confined to the conferences on Fidonet. My own experience
> has been that both extreme positions in this argument have
> accumulated their share of unreasonable proponents so that
> rational public discussion is impossible.

Actually, the complained of messages have very little to do with the subject matter of the Abortion conference. A poster to that conference, with a reportedly long history of being harassing, and annoying in various conferences in Fidonet was using a addy in his messages that stated: mailto:jesusonacid@yahoo.com which does not appear to be a n actual email addres. It is irrelevant anyway whether it is an actual email address. Admittedly, there was little I could do about him posting that email address in messages to all or others. However, because he knew that the email address was offensive to me to the point of intentionally inflicting emotional distress he set out upon a campaign to harass me generally and in the religious sense by sending numerous repeated messages to me containing that awful email address; and he did so in total disregard of my demands that he cease and desist claiming a "free speech" right to do so.

He then moved to the Bible conference where he was told that his messages which contained such offensive terms were not welcome. He then moved to the HolySmoke conference where I have never been a participant. There he started to post defamatory and untrue statements about me. I posted a warning and defense telling him to stop posting untrue, defamatory, harassing messages to or about me and he set out to assault me with repeated, vulgar, religiously harassing and harassing, defamatory/slanderous/libelous messages directed to my address and posted in the international conference known as "holysmoke". Many of his freinds joined in with equally offensive comments and messages.

The incidents above have nothing to do with "rational public discussion" and everything to do with the posting of messages with no value other than religious harassment, harassment, defamation/slander/libel in the face of a demand to the writers, moderators, zone managers that they cease and desist. In other words, FidoNet was put on NOTICE of these improper messages and at that point had a duty to take action to stop/control such messages. In addition, I posted several civil and criminal statutes which clearly demonstrated the liability of the posters, the sysops and Fidonet.

> What's unclear from Mike's account is how much he contributed
> to situation which led to his bannings and heated responses. I
> wouldn't expect him to report that he went into the discussions
> with an attitude and drew response in kind from his
> counterparts on the other extreme of the issue, but it does
> seem more reasonable a scenario that that he joined the
> conference posting sweetness and light and received personal
> attacks from the forces of evil.

The initial attacks on me were not brought on by me unless you want to consider a simple request that someone not post to or about me with religiously harassing statements or addys. I did not go to Holysmoke to participate. I went there only to defend myself once I was made aware that false, defamatory/slanderous/libeous statements were being made about me.

> Here are two areas where Mike's case against Fidonet is clearly
> weak, though. (1) He holds Fidonet Sysops and Moderators
> responsible for controlling messages he finds offensive, and
> (2) he threatens legal action.

That may be considered weak in terms of how Fidonet views these matters; but it is NOT weak in terms of the law or common decency. Why Fidonet would want to condone a conference like HolySmoke is beyond me; but that's not my gripe. My gripe is that unscrupled people can enter the conference and being posting clearly tortious and illegal messages about me without any action from Fidonet or it's personnel, sysops. Likewise when a similarly vulgar zone coordinator can post similar messages about me and incite others to post messages (along with his own) to my sysops to get my access cut. By the way, I have just been informed by my main BBS sysop that if I get booted from one more conference he is going to cut my access.

> If the decline of Fidonet is predicated on Sysops and
> Moderators controlling messages to the extent of not offending
> anyone, then we may as well throw in the towel now. Folks can
> take offense at anything and frequently do. Controlling ones
> own reaction to offense has always been necessary for public
> interaction, and is hardly new to Fidonet. I doubt that this
> requirement has led to the decline of Fido.

Controlling one's own reaction to Offense? To outright religious harassment, harassment, slander, libel, defamation in conferences that I did not elect to participate in? I think not. These matters are not "anything". They constitute violations of law, which even in the light of the current laws create clear legal liability on the part of Fidonet and it's sysops. Even the immunity afforded newspapers and broadcasters does not apply when the said newspapers and broadcasters were made aware of the defamation and continued to publish/broadcast it.

> Yes, moderators have taken steps over the years to restrict
> posting which goes out of its way to be offensive, but the
> effort is normally directed towards the smooth flow of
> conversation in the echo. Participants who take offense
> frequently to the statements of others and expect moderator
> action in each case have frequently found themselves removed
> from the conference on the basis that their complaints are just
> as disruptive as the offensive posting. Which is worse: one
> who goes out of his way to be offensive, or one who goes out of
> his way to be offended?

How does someone go out of his way to be offended? Am I expected to allow someone to defame/libel/slander me in an international echo? I think not. Do I have to be harassed and religiously harassed? I think not.

> Threatening legal action is the lowest form of echo behavior,
> in my opinion. First of all, it is seldom seriously intended
> nor practical and, as such, is only intended as bluff and
> bravado.

This is not a case of bluff or bravado. The legal actions are already being put into motion; and whether Fidonet becomes involved depends upon how and when Fidonet handles the present situation.

> However, it's the biggest conversation killer around. What
> echo participant would want to cope with legal action over
> conversations which are supposed to be a pastime? Defending
> against even a trivial legal matter would impose more expense
> and time demands on an individual than he is willing to devote
> to the hobby. In my opinion, threatened legal action gives any
> moderator or sysop the right to drop the threatener.

Single Out someone and expose them to harassment and religious harassment, defamation/slander/libel is supposed to be a pastime? I think not. As far as the moderator or sysop, they are subject to the laws of the state and the United States and civil and criminal liability.

> Fidonet does need ways to cope with the fact that there are
> going to be less BBSes in the future. Unlike many of the
> optimists, I don't think that trend is going to reverse...
> though I think Fido can survive with a smaller nodelist.
> However, I don't think the discussion is enhanced by taking up
> every grudge which comes down the pike. Sorry, Mike, but I
> think you're going to have to come to terms with the moderators
> and sysops you're arguing with on your own. I don't think
> you'll muster "Fidonet" behind you.

So be it. However, I do think I CAN muster the state and federal judicial and law enforcement systems behind me. Sorry to be that blunt; but it would appear that you are merely echoing the pervasive attitude in Fidonet that lets problems like this arise when a vulgar, unscrupled atheist or satanist decides to have some fun attacking other people because of their religious beliefs.

---------------
Editor: You're not being blunt - you're being unreasonable. You're expecting me to embrace your cause and stop those who would speak against you while at the same time threatening legal action. I see no reason to further discuss this with you and possibly give you something for your attornies to mull over. Have a nice life.

Is There Support for MAC?
Email from Miroslav Ambrus-Kis<miroslav.ambrus-kis@vecernji-list.tel.hr>

Pardon for appearence :-)

Seems that Fidonet ozrganization is supporting some abandoned platforms like Atari and Amiga, but doesn't support some living - like Macintosh is!

Is it only about a (mis)perception, or Macintosh users - unlike myself - do not care, or even don't suffer the nostalgia about Fido?

These (possibly boring?) remarks are only because an exhaustive search for up-to-date Macintosh OLR software gave me the only usefult information: your mail address.

Please, give me at least some hints or URL-s for connection between Macintosh and Fidonet based BBS sofware.

Sorry to bother...

---------------
Editor: You're no bother :) Unfortunately, I have no personal knowledge of Macintosh software availability, but maybe one of the readers of Fidonet does.

This is a HOBBY!
Response to Editorial
Netmail from Roy J. Tellason, 1:270/615

Consider this a "letter to the editor" and feel free to publish it...

* Reply to a message in FIDONEWS.

FidoNews Robot wrote in a message to All:

FR> ============================================
FR> EDITORIAL
FR> ============================================

FR> Bullies
FR> Doug Myers

FR> Sunday Morning I received an article from "Mike" (full name not
FR> given) on "The Bullies of Fidonet." It's an article I don't
FR> fully agree with - but since Fidonews should be open to all
FR> viewpoints, I publish it without regret. The free press nature
FR> of Fidonews, however, does not prevent me (nor anyone else)
FR> from presenting an opinion on the issue, however.

FR> First of all, I sympathize with Mike in his plight. I would
FR> imagine that he really is receiving all the unkind messages he
FR> says he is. I'm not following the particular conferences he
FR> cites nor the discussion in progress, but the arguments between
FR> pro-life and pro-choice on abortion matters isn't exactly new
FR> nor confined to the conferences on Fidonet. My own experience
FR> has been that both extreme positions in this argument have
FR> accumulated their share of unreasonable proponents so that
FR> rational public discussion is impossible.

Agreed. Or at least very difficult... :-)

FR> What's unclear from Mike's account is how much he contributed
FR> to situation which led to his bannings and heated responses.

I don't think that's particularly relevant, though.

FR> I wouldn't expect him to report that he went into the
FR> discussions with an attitude and drew response in kind from his
FR> counterparts on the other extreme of the issue, but it does
FR> seem more reasonable a scenario that that he joined the
FR> conference posting sweetness and light and received personal
FR> attacks from the forces of evil.

It doesn't really matter, either way.

FR> Here are two areas where Mike's case against Fidonet is clearly
FR> weak, though. (1) He holds Fidonet Sysops and Moderators
FR> responsible for controlling messages he finds offensive, and
FR> (2) he threatens legal action.

"Case against Fidonet is clearly weak" is simply not strong enough language for dealing with this. First off, it's been fairly well established in legal opinion that there are two ways to go with this sort of a communications medium.

The first one is to provide for the movement of information, whether it be messages or files or whatever not being particularly relevant, without exercising much if any say in terms of the content. I could be a little off on this but I believe that this makes one a "common carrier".

The other approach is to maintain control over content, and the legal aspect of this that's probably of most concern to sysops is that this makes you in effect a "publisher", and puts you in the position of being completely liable for ALL content on your system.

I don't know about most sysops, but I carry a fair number of echos here, some of which seem to run very high in volume, and I don't read all of these echos, but have them here in terms of stuff that callers might be interested in. There's simply no way I'd have the time to do so, I have a hard enough time keeping up with the stuff I want to read! :-)

The other aspect of this that I have a LARGE problem with is the threat of legal action. I remember one incident in another net not all that long ago where somebody did something similar. And there was no way in hell I'd ever want to associate with somebody who would do such a thing. In fact, that particular individual actually called my BBS and addressed this issue, at which point I simply told them that they'd crossed a line there and that there was no way they were ever going to un-do what they'd done.

I have no downlinks for fido at this point in time, but if I did, there's no way that I would care to feed anybody who would express such a point of view. Do others feel differently about that? Is the person who's feeding this guy willing to assume that kind of liability?

This is a HOBBY! And I have absolutely no obligation to deal with people who would resort to such a threat, much less such tactics. Nor do they have any "rights" when it comes to feeding from my system.

FR> If the decline of Fidonet is predicated on Sysops and
FR> Moderators controlling messages to the extent of not offending
FR> anyone, then we may as well throw in the towel now. Folks can
FR> take offense at anything and frequently do. Controlling ones
FR> own reaction to offense has always been necessary for public
FR> interaction, and is hardly new to Fidonet. I doubt that this
FR> requirement has led to the decline of Fido.

Agreed.

FR> Yes, moderators have taken steps over the years to restrict
FR> posting which goes out of its way to be offensive, but the
FR> effort is normally directed towards the smooth flow of
FR> conversation in the echo. Participants who take offense
FR> frequently to the statements of others and expect moderator
FR> action in each case have frequently found themselves removed
FR> from the conference on the basis that their complaints are just
FR> as disruptive as the offensive posting. Which is worse: one
FR> who goes out of his way to be offensive, or one who goes out of his way to be offended?

When I last encountered an individual who, for whatever reasons, found my posts in a certain (technical) echo to be objectionable, though the moderator and other participants in that echo didn't, I suggested to him, after seeing complaints by him to the moderator, that if he really didn't like the way that the echo was run he should start his own. So he did. I have no idea how it's doing, I don't carry it here, nor do I participate in it, but he's presumably less unhappy than he was before.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? You don't like something that's happening, you "vote with your feet"...?

FR> Threatening legal action is the lowest form of echo behavior,
FR> in my opinion. First of all, it is seldom seriously intended
FR> nor practical and, as such, is only intended as bluff and
FR> bravado.

Maybe.

FR> However, it's the biggest conversation killer around. What
FR> echo participant would want to cope with legal action over
FR> conversations which are supposed to be a pastime? Defending
FR> against even a trivial legal matter would impose more expense
FR> and time demands on an individual than he is willing to devote
FR> to the hobby. In my opinion, threatened legal action gives any
FR> moderator or sysop the right to drop the threatener.

Also agreed. It's in effect somebody's way of saying "I can't deal with you directly, so I'm gonna beat you up with my attorney..."

FR> Fidonet does need ways to cope with the fact that there are
FR> going to be less BBSes in the future. Unlike many of the
FR> optimists, I don't think that trend is going to reverse...
FR> though I think Fido can survive with a smaller nodelist.
FR> However, I don't think the discussion is enhanced by taking up
FR> every grudge which comes down the pike. Sorry, Mike, but I
FR> think you're going to have to come to terms with the moderators
FR> and sysops you're arguing with on your own. I don't think
FR> you'll muster "Fidonet" behind you.

He sure isn't going to get any support from this sysop!