F I D O N E W S -- Vol.12 No.26 (26-Jun-1995) +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | A newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet BBS community | "FidoNews" BBS | | _ | +1-519-570-4176 | | / \ | | | /|oo \ | | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | | | | | \ \\ | Editors: | | | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 | | |__U__| / \// | Sylvia 1:221/194 | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: editors 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MORE addresses: | | | | submissions=> editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Don -- don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Sylvia max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies of fidonews or the internet gateway faq | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== 1. Editorial..................................................... 2 2. Articles...................................................... 2 Subject: The times, they are not changing at all, apparently 3 A QUICK RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE OF IGNORANCE WRITTEN BY BOB 5 Subject: Russian objects to atheism in snooze ........ 11 Subject: A Response to Bob Germer........................... 12 Subject: Legalities of FidoNet.............................. 13 Subject: What the hell is going on here?.................... 14 As always, I was and remain utterly correct................. 16 Subject: Threats & germer................................... 17 DEF CON III Convention Update #1.80 (06.20.95).............. 22 Connecticut Harassment law/what next?....................... 28 Subject: Libel.............................................. 29 Subject: Reply to Germer.................................... 30 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 31 FidoNews 12-26 Page: 2 26 Jun 1995 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== We have a large issue this week, with just about every article about lawsuits. How boring. Several of them suggest that anyone who sues within Fidonet should be given the quick heave, a position that I cannot agree with. Although we were have been threatened with suits twice now, I cannot really say that either threat worried me much. Normally, I would just print the threat, the same as any other letter "to the editor". The one, however, threatened a second suit if I made the first threat public. I took that to mean the writer did not mean it for publication. Back to the topic, though. Lawsuits are between people. Individuals. The fact that one of the people is in Fidonet is quite irrelevant. Each one of us is responsible for controling ourselves, and if we cannot refrain from getting into mud-slinging matches by mail, then we should be willing to take the flack. Expecting the "fidogods" to overrule the courts of the particular country we live in is rather stupid. In Canada, it would probably gain one a contempt of court charge, and rightfully so. Over and over again I hear calls for exactly that. Kick out the offender. Invariably the calls are from a third party that claims to be acting to protect our freedom to belong to the net. I don't get it. Ignoring people is much simpler. hello! this is me. i wish i hadn't ever offended anyone ever, but, ... at least im not a homoganized glob and neither are you. i was actually playing with the notion of beginning to "edit" for real, and now i wish my pure virgin mind which had previously never imagined censoring anyone had never thought that thought!; er, her i go censoring my self agin. sigh. babblepseak: contempt of court being illegal is nonsensical. i thought trials were for trying ideas. wierd. ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== FidoNews 12-26 Page: 3 26 Jun 1995 From: Tom Jennings To: Dallas Hinton Subject: The times, they are not changing at all, apparently. Sigh. > The RC council and the Z1C have been discussing the current state > of FidoNet. We are not happy. The standard of behaviour of some > of those in FidoNet is simply not acceptable. ... > The clean up process has already begun. Some *Cs have been > abusing their position by attempting to exercise imaginary powers > within FidoNet. They have already been replaced and there will be > more removed unless those problem *Cs wake up very quickly. I'll believe you are all sincere when you delete yourself when your moral purge is done. > Someone is bound to scream about "power mongers" and "control > freaks". Any *C who actually IS a control freak will be removed. What do you call what you are doing? > ... news of another *C resigning because someone > threatened to file a lawsuit if their echo wasn't getting enough > attention. That sort of nonsense is going to stop. Now. The emotional tone is patriotic and rousing, but likely impractical, as I believe it's this sort of chest-pounding that is the root cause. Besides, you'll probably find that trying to restrict people from their legal rights -- no matter how distateful or misdirected they are (yes, I've heard the horrors) -- will simply backfire on you. > In addition, any NC who is charging ANYTHING for issuing a node > number in FidoNet had better stop doing so. If I find out about > it, that NC will be removed as fast as I can type. FidoNet is now, > always has been, and always will be free in the spirit that Tom > Jennings intended. This I agree with 101%. This doesn't lend authority to the moral-purge though. > Policy 4 states (section 9.1), "Thou shalt not excessively annoy others". It also states, "thou shalt not be easily annoyed." This is actually more important than the first, oft-repeated one. flame { "Thou shalt not be easily annoyed." } > Effective immediately, "excessively annoying" will include (on > the first offence): threats (against life, limb, employment, etc), FidoNews 12-26 Page: 4 26 Jun 1995 > abusive behaviour, and legal action or threats of legal action > regarding FidoNet matters. This is not an exhaustive list. If > someone manages to find a new way of being excessively annoying, > the *C chain will deal with them appropriately. Personally, I find very many of the /0's vastly, excessively, annoying, but I also think it is my (our) responsibility to FidoNet to refuse to become excessively annoyed. I wish others, especially the /0's, would do this. The self-appointed can do anything they like in FidoNet, as long as they keep in mind that the single criteria for being in the FidoNet Nodelist are technical. It is not restricted to anyone based upon behavior, personal history, legal status, how much you like them, etc. Even /0's are welcome. The troubles in the US FidoNet truly mirror the times, with partisan moral purges, chest-pounding, threats, back-stabbing, etc. Istead of worrying about the state of others houses, or worse, the inside of their heads, they did the same for themselves, it would be much better. I assume this is the list of co-conspirators. You might want to forward them a copy, for completeness. Randy Morgan (1:134/0) David Hays (1:138/0) Ken Read (1:140/0) Russ Johnson (1:152/0) Tony Bearman (1:153/0) Alex Stuart (1:340/0) Tom Hall (1:342/0) Bob Jones (1:343/0) Larry Juker (1:344/0) Susan Waters (1:346/0) Bill Parrott (1:347/0) Russ Crook (1:348/0) Steve Lea (1:349/0) Adolph Weidanz (1:350/0) Herb Addison (1:351/0) Rick Castle (1:352/0) Mauro Incrocci (1:353/0) Peter Stern (1:355/0) Les Lemke (1:356/0) Khile Klock (1:357/0) Laz Gottli (1:358/0) Roy DaCosta (1:359/0) David Anderson (1:3400/0) Wayne Gay (1:3401/0) Bruce Anderson (1:3402/0) Rob Jacobsen (1:3403/0) Rusty Stevens (1:3404/0) Patrick Jensen (1:3405/0) Carey Starzinger (1:3406/0) Vic Parrish (1:3407/0) FidoNews 12-26 Page: 5 26 Jun 1995 John Lewin (1:3408/0) Steven Horn (1:3409/0) Dan Williamson (1:3410/0) Ada Willis (1:3411/0) Ralf Schulze (1:3412/0) Cameron Craig (1:3413/0) Alan Beck (1:3414/0) Cal Baker (1:3415/0) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A QUICK RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE OF IGNORANCE WRITTEN BY BOB GERMER by Carl McCaskey Fidonet -- 1:3605/75 & 1:3605/316 Internet -- mccaskey@symnet.net & mccaskey@freenet.fsu.edu I read Bobby's article in the last issue of Fidonews and quite frankly had a good laugh from it. Bobby's ignorance of what or what does not constitute libel is quite revealing. In fact, the overall impression one gets from reading his drivel is one of paranoia and delusions of grandeur. Anyway, I digress. I'll keep my responses to various portions of his diatribe as brief and to the point as I can. BG> Subject: Libelous Article In Fidonews <*chuckle*> Let's look at what Bob considers "libelous" shall we? BG> From: Bob Germer (8:950/10) BG> Mr. Tees and Ms. Maxwell: BG> An article appeared in the 6/6/95 issue of Fidonews which BG> contains at least four absolute lies and which also refers BG> to me as a fool. Whether or not you're fool is debatable, but not libelous. BG> Here are the specific lies contained in the article. The BG> words from the Fidonews are preceeded by the initials FN BG> for easy reference. BG> FN> Lot's has happened this week... A particular sysop who BG> FN> isn't even part of FIDO anymore, (he resigned in BG> FN> disgrace).... has BG> I did not resign in disgrace. This is an absolute lie and BG> libelous. All we have is one person's word against another's. If this is the best rebuttal (weak) you can come up with, then it won't convince any judge and/or jury. BG> FN> made a living hell for the real sysops of FIDO. Who is FidoNews 12-26 Page: 6 26 Jun 1995 BG> FN> this sysop you may ask? Bob Germer of Region 8. (I BG> FN> believe this is family net). BG> This is another lie. I am not and never was a member of BG> anything called Family Net. Mistakes of fact does not automatically constitute a lie. Try again. BG> FN> This week he threatened Mike Fuchs with a lawsuit BG> FN> for allowing Z1_GERMER to be elisted, Mike Fuchs got BG> FN> tired of putting up with shitheads like germinator BG> FN> that are so cowardly BG> I am not a shithead. This is a lie and libelous. It is an _opinion_ and your charge of libel on this point would not stand up in court. BG> I am not a coward. As a decorated veteran, this is a most BG> serious libel. Again, this is a person's opinion and your charge of libel on this point would not stand up in court. BG> FN> The threats of lawsuits are uncalled for in FIDO... BG> FN> The first scum to do it was winter (lowercase intentional), BG> FN> now germinator. What has happened to FIDO? The *C structure BG> FN> refuses BG> I am not scum. This is a lie and libelous. Once again it is _opinion_ and your charge of libel on this point would also not stand up in court. BG> FN> about lawsuits and other legal actions. Hell, Planet Connect BG> FN> dumped germer's point status and is probably dumping his BG> FN> entire service. Planet Connect should be commended on not BG> FN> backing down from threats. While not everyone has the money BG> FN> that PC has that BG> This is another lie. Planet Connect is not "dumping his entire BG> service". This is likewise libelous. This charge of a lie is debatable since PC seems to have done just as you denied. However, once again, your charge of libel here would not stand up in court. BG> FN> should not be a prerequisate(sic?) to backing down... BG> FN> We should stand up to fools such as the germer's BG> FN> and teh winter's and make BG> I categorically state that I am not a fool. Unless one can BG> prove I am a fool, one has libeled me. FidoNews 12-26 Page: 7 26 Jun 1995 Incorrect, Mr. Germer, there is no libel. On the person's opinion that you are a fool, your past actions, posts, etc. would possibly substantiate such an accusation of you being a fool in a court of law _IF_ (and I emphasize the word _IF_) the judge didn't automatically dismiss the charge on the same grounds as all of your previous frivolous and unfounded charges. BG> One who protects his or her rights as I have done and as I BG> will continue to do is not a fool; such a person is a wise BG> and responsible citizen. No, Mr. Germer, any person who routinely _abuses_ the American judicial system with such frivolous and harassing suits as you have been threatening of late is unwise and irresponsible. The courts usually frown upon such trivial suits and tend to rule in favor of countersuits against those who abuse the legal system and waste the court's time, money and patience. I strongly suggest you obtain the services of a _competent_ attorney who specializes in libel and slander cases for it is obvious that either: a) your current attorney is feeding you bad legal advice (or you haven't consulted with counsel concerning libel) or b) you are deluding yourself in thinking you are competent in the subject of libel/slander. Either way, your points are quite weak and to pursue them in a court of law would open you up to some serious countersuits and possible judicial fines and penalties. BG> FN> So basicly we need to impeach everyone & start from BG> FN> scratch as well as make provisions to keep scum who BG> FN> threaten lawsuits out of FIDO. Everyone has the right BG> FN> to be an asshole and voice their opinions, but the BG> FN> threats of frivolous lawsuits needs to be abolished. BG> FN> Also anyone making multiple PC's that are constantly BG> FN> rejected need to be ousted as well. Let's all make BG> Again I am libeled by being called scum and further libeled BG> again by being called an asshole. Once again -- it wouldn't hold up in court. BG> While one may categorize a suit to protect one's rights BG> "frivolous", that does not make it so. Using the law to BG> protect one's name and reputation when libelously attacked BG> is not frivolous. It is q