Letters to the Editor

Mon 1 Jan 01 1:52p
By: Joe Jared
To: Torbjorn Mohn
Re: Yuck!
St:

Hello Torbjorn!

Monday January 01 2001 14:47, you wrote to Frank Vest:

>FV> Further, IMHO, it isn't right to grab a message from an
>FV> administrative echo in one Zone and post it in the Fidonews.
>FV> If you are going to do this, you should have access to each
>FV> Zone's administrative echos and grab from them all.... either
>FV> that, or open Z1C to all of Fidonet for consumption.

TM> Very well put, and I agree 100%. Also the issue of quoting
TM> PRIVATE email messages publically without the consent of the
TM> sender, is bad.

JJ>I forwarded my private email to Warren. By definition, by
JJ>forwarding said email messages to Warren, the email became public
JJdomain.

JJ> Further, since the email brought forth an issue relevent to Zone 1
JJ> any definition of 'Explicitly confidential' should be considered
JJ> moot.

TM> Not only because it's to be regarded as PRIVATE, but also
TM> technically, there is no way of actually verifying that the
TM> content has not been tampered with. A public message is something
TM> else, because everyone

JJ>On my reputation, the email from Ward was unmodified, other than
JJ>for purposes of formatting. Ward basically stated between the
JJ>lines that he would rule on zone 1 matters if this issue was
JJ>opposed. By making the issue public, I challenged him to do so.
JJ>I do agree however that Warren should ask permission to post
JJ>echomail messages in fidonews. The right to complain however
JJ>falls on the poster, and since you weren't quoted...

TM> known only to the sender and the recipient. Not that I suspect
TM> that anyone here is lying or "fixing" such messages they quote,
TM> but one can never be 100% sure, bacause it's so easy to do.
TM> Also "the art of selective quoting" can bring out a very
TM> interesting view on things. A long and private exchange of
TM> arguments can turn out very bad, if one of the parties suddenly
TM> decides to go public with only parts of the conversation.

JJ>I've known Ward's email address for quite some time, and the fact
JJ>that he responded to my email to him is verification enough.
JJ>I know that the email from Ward is valid, and hope that on its own
JJ>merit that it becomes his undoing. I rarely take a stand on issues,
JJ>but hope for the sake of fidonet that people realize just how much
JJ> of a power monger that he is, and fight for his removal.

TM> Therefore to all of you in here, who seem to be so concerned
TM> about Fidonet ethics, I think it's indeed unethical to publicise
TM> private conversations, NO MATTER WHAT the reason for doing so
TM> might be.

TM> Happy new year everybody, and may we all think about the future
TM> of Fidonet when dealing with the issues at hand. Ethics is indeed
TM> difficult. :)

JJ>Very much so.

joejared@osirusoft.com

* Origin: telnet://telnet.osirusoft.com (1:103/301)

> Hello Frank!
>
> FV> Further still, The size of the Fidonews has more than
> FV> quadrupled and I don't believe that people want to wade through
> FV> especially if they can't make heads or tails of it.
>
BQ> I agree! I just didn't want to be the first to speak up and say
BQ> anything.
>
WB>Well the cat's out of the box now! <Chuckle> I promise that there
WB>wont ever be a Snooze that long again. 'Twas an unusual situation
WB>and a New Year edition. IF one bothered to read the header, one
WB>would have been advised that a lot of quoting was present, to read
WB>WHO said what to WHOM. No confusion read that way.

WB>It was important to represent each sysop's input on the subject
WB>fairly. To leave anyone out would bring cries of censorship.
WB>Haven't been accused of that! heehee

WB>Aside from the length this issue, it isn't easy editing the many
WB>errors Donews finds. Especially the illegal characters.

WD>Ok, Bobby, thanks for your input also. Will try harder to please
WB>all with a shorter Snooze. Sure be less work for me. 8^)

Ol'wdb

* Origin: Telnet://TheLastStop.osirusoft.com/ 1:103/401 (1:103/401)