Guest Editorial

• Editorial Rebuttal
• First Principles, Part I

Editorial Rebuttal
Ross Cassell, http://thedarkcorner.dynip.com (1:3639/93)

You may post this as a rebuttal to your editorial

FR> ==================================
FR> EDITORIAL
FR> ==================================
FR> Freedom of the Press
FR> Doug Myers

FR> This week's editorial was inspired by Ross Cassell's guest
FR> editorial. But let me make it clear that I don't think that
FR> Ross seeks to abridge the principle of a Free Press. Nor is it
FR> a proper response to Ross's editorial; for what it's worth, I
FR> mostly agree with him. Rather, it's an attempt on my part to
FR> explain to the readers here how I view the concept of Freedom
FR> of the Press, and why such freedom might be extended to the
FR> clearly unpopular views of Charles Hunter (apparently the real
FR> name of "Mike," who complains of persecution at the hands of

My editorial did not hint in the least that this author advocated abridging or inhibiting the Freedom Of The Press. I could care less about the unpopular views of Charles Hunter, except that he is doing nothing but threatening legal action against any individual whom dont sing his praises, including the very sysops whom give him access to a Fidonet Message base. Now I dont think being the threatened or the threatener equates to popularity of lack of it, it might equate to stupidity tho? The point being he wanders into or actually followed another individual into an echo whose purpose is to taunt, flame etc, then he wants to cry about it?

Charles was not persecuted at the hands of Fidonet, he subjected himself to the ridicule of other users such as himself within an echo where such ridicule is commonplace.

My editorial which possibly didnt convey my point very well was posted to say this:

I feel that Fidonews is the newsletter for the members of Fidonet, Charles Hunter is not a member of Fidonet, at least not by any nodelist I got. He should have gotten a member of this association to post something on his behalf, but with his lawsuit threats, who is going to act on behalf of him? When I first netmailed Doug Myers voicing my objections to him publishing Charles whine and pout letter, I used an analogy that is kinda sorta proper?

" If the local garden club holds a sale at the local community center, selling the various plants their members cultivated, and I patronized this sale, do I have a voice in the garden clubs newsletter? "

Garden Club = Fidonet
     Member = Fidonet BBS Sysop
     Patron = BBS User
 Newsletter = Fidonews

The answer is, I think not.

Now taking this a step further, I could have a problem with a plant I bought and I could address my concern to a member, whom might on my behalf say something about it via their newsletter?

No Doug, I had a problem with a non-member [A] being given a voice in our newsletter on the first hand, why he had to use an alias, I dunno? [B] He is threatening our membership with legal action because someone says boo to him.

[snip]

FR> So recently your editor finds in his email an article by
FR> Charles Hunter, claiming persecution at the hands of Fidonet.
FR> Does he strike your editor as one who's story simply must be
FR> heard, either because it has merit or because the free press
FR> nature of Fidonews demands that it be printed? Or should the
FR> article be rejected because the author is not a Fidonet sysop
FR> or because the point of view might upset some?

See above... :)

FR> Actually, neither extreme determined publication or rejection
FR> of the article. Certainly, I didn't think that Charles (or
FR> "Mike" or whatever) had a strong argument, and his tendency
FR> towards legal threats predisposed me to just delete the message
FR> to begin with. Nor did I consider whether he was a Fidonet
FR> sysop or not - I feel there are many who are not sysops who
FR> make positive contributions to Fidonet, and this publication is
FR> for them also.

Let him become a member, if he has enough money to throw around paying for lawyers, he can certainly afford registration fees for Fido software!

FR> So why did he get published? Well, it was a slow day for
FR> news... ... and I did consider that there was some content of
FR> interest to Fidonews readers. Like it or not, the expectation
FR> that the Sysops and Moderators of Fidonet should control what's
FR> posted here is strong with many, and should be vocalized from
FR> time to time... if only to repudiate the notion.

Ah the slow news day..... <g>

Actually my whole editorial was an objection, not a demand, directive or anything remotely perceivable as controlling..

Some might have called it an opinion? <g>

---------------
Editor's Note: At no time did I consider your editorial a demand, nor anything less than a fine contribution to Fidonews. The fact that we differ in some of the details of our thinking merely indicates that there are two minds at work here :)

First Principles
Part I in a Series examining ZMH and FTS001 Issues
David B. Smith, American Tune BBS (1:2410/104)

You know, I've had the thought recently that ZMH concept is designed and best suited for FidoNet looked at from the original perspective, the exact opposite of today.

The original concept was each BBS as a venue unto itself. Its own message areas, its own file areas, everything on its own. Fidonet's netmail was one small intrusion into that isolation. And it was set up in such a way that it intruded very little.

ZMH is netmail not trying to interfere with the accessibility of the BBS for users, because Netmail was one very small thing. So out of 24 hours of operation -- and maybe less, with some BBSes -- only one hour is alloted to passing netmail. More would be obstructive. Less would be insufficient, if you have multiple people trying to send you netmail, or if you're sending netmail, so not all your recieving time is available.

And the rest of the time, you're mailer can be shut down and tucked in a corner, if that what you feel is best for your system.

Echomail changed all that, and on top of that all the filebones. Now, BBSes are no longer individual. Mostly, they are places to connect to one or more networks. So there is no reason for Fidonet's machinations to be unobtrusive. Avoiding inability to connect is important. But trying to make Fidonet and other network feeds invisible is kinda meaningless.

I think ZMH does no particular harm. There are ways it could cause harm; for example, if it is used as a motivation to remove BBSes from the Network.

The whole point of ZMH is to say that Fidonet -won't- interfere with operation of the BBS as it's own independent venue, any more than it absolutely must. One hour a day, and absolutely no more. Outside of that one hour a day, if you feel it's best, you can pull the plug and walk away if you want to. Fidonet is secondary, the BBS is primary. "First, do no harm."

As for FTS001 (hope I got the name right), it isn't intended as a requirement to be -imposed- on the BBS and the Sysop, it is again a way of interfering -least- with the BBS. "If you have a mailer that does -at least- this, you don't need to buy anything more, unless you -want- to."

Likewise, Echomail exists to add to the quality of the BBS, and not vice versa. If the handling or content of Echomail interferes with the quality of the BBS, then it needs to be dealt with in it's secondary role, preserving the BBS primarily.

Bottom line, the BBS and the Sysop and how an individual wants to run their individual system, that's what's most important. Fidonet standards, rules, guidelines, Policies, whatever, are all secondary to that.

Now, with so many other ways to move Netmail and Echomail and such, it is entirely possible for ZMH as a -rule- to interfere with a BBS. I don't think it will happen often. But in those cases where it's a question of the BBS's primary role as a local site for local conversations & game-playing & what-all, and it's secondary role as a repository and access point for echomail and netmail and such, then I believe Fidonet has to return to those first principles. Do what is necessary to preserve that primary function, the individual BBS itself.

I don't expect most people to agree with me. But that's what I think is right.