F I D O N E W S -- Volume 15, Number 28 13 July 1998 +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | The newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet community | "FidoNews" | | _ | 1-209-251-7529 [1:1/23] | | / \ | | | /|oo \ | | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | | | | | \ \\ | Editor: | | | (*) | \ )) | Zorch Frezberg 1:205/1701 | | |__U__| / \// | | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: FidoNews Editor 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MORE addresses: | | | | submissions=> editor@fidonews.org | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies of FidoNews or the internet gateway FAQ | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ In the Kingdom of the Blind... Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR .................................... 3 3. ARTICLES ................................................. 6 Z1C tries to bully Z1R10 refugees ........................ 6 Region 25 Has a New REC .................................. 7 The Story of Statistics .................................. 7 Zone 1 Region 10 nodes speak out ......................... 9 4. COLUMNS .................................................. 14 The rancid reek of Zorch's vendettas ..................... 14 5. NOTICES .................................................. 29 Future History ........................................... 29 6. FIDONEWS PUBLIC-KEY ...................................... 30 FidoNews PGP Public-Key Listing .......................... 30 7. FIDONET BY INTERNET ...................................... 31 8. FIDONEWS INFORMATION ..................................... 34 FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 1 13 Jul 1998 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= More of the same, just weirder. A serious eye problem has kept me from doing much with computer screens for the past week, but it is slowly healing....enough for me to scan over the usual and see that the same continues...and perhaps a bit more keenly... This week, the same perceptions are brought forward, while more goes on in the background...perhaps it's time to bring some of it forward. After looking over Cindy Ingersoll's list published here last week, I find it interesting to note that nearly every Zone 1 node that offers Fidonet via Internet charges for access, but nearly every non-Zone 1 node does not. This at a time when Fidonet is shrinking in Zone 1, but growing in other countries, and despite the fact that Internet access is cheaper in Zone 1 than anywhere in the world. For that matter, so is telephone service, computer equipment, and everything else involved in running a BBS. It's hard not to attribute a cause-and-effect relationship to this correlation but I suppose I can manage. After all, the Stars manage, no? Likewise, the consistent threat of at least one such provider to 'no longer carry FidoNews' if it contravenes that person's 'view' as to what the FidoNews should or should not publish, carry or cover has worn thin. The less-than-veiled threat of censorship by not carrying FidoNews only makes the threat more visible for what it is...plain, simple censorship. Besides, without the FidoNews, that same provider would not have a own platform to spew forth a version of hate, innuendo and less than complete truth...as much an accusation as has been slung at this Editor by the same person. I suppose no one will truly be happy until the Snooze is controlled by a group devoted to their own agenda...or until their coalition of convenience breaks down. Likewise, the comments on vendettas and other alleged pogroms being carried out by this Editor pale compared to the same vendettas and pogroms being carried out by our long-time columnist, and in his own published column...but, then, I suppose it is acceptable until your own ox is gored, no? In the same vein, it is also interesting to see a pair of articles submitted by someone who has openly declared that FidoNet Policy is but merely a 'suggestion'...then acts to have that same Policy used to protect his own agenda. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 2 13 Jul 1998 One note: Didn't David Hallford publicly declare he would never return to FidoNet so long as Bob Kohl was in a coordinator post? How odd, as well, that the happy neighbors of the late Roy Rogers have pulled up stakes and moved to Canada from California...but, then again, the same persons behind the move also have distinct problems in following Policy as well, so perhaps it is a good thing to keep them all together. After all, trying and convicting people by the court of 'public opinion' is so much more convenient than getting both sides of a story. In brighter news, Damian Walker has published election results in from Zone 2's recent elections...and we've published the first page of available Fido-Over-IP listings, since the Falcon site went 'dark' in Region 50. And, with great appreciation and honor, I'd like to point out a new FidoNews site in Estonia, a former holding of the defunct Soviet Union, which is translating the FidoNews into the Estonian language. As well as the sister site in Sweden, we see two sysops willing to translate the FidoNews for their own members in their own languages. Translation is a time-consuming and tedious prospect, especially to those who are not truly fluent in the other language; the efforts of these sysops should not go unrecognized, either within their own Zone or by FidoNet itself. As with the other listed sites performing similar translations to present Fido information in native languages, it is an honor and privilege to see that those sites in the other Zones still observe the original mission of FidoNet...communication, at a lower cost and convenience to all. Perhaps Zone 1 can learn from this before it allows politics to tear it apart, hmmmmm? -zf- ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 3 13 Jul 1998 ================================================================= LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ================================================================= "MISDIRECTION -- TOO GOOD TO STOP NOW" by Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008 bk> First point, the ZEC duties were written with input not only bk> from the RECs, but from the sysops of Z1 themselves. There was bk> no single author to the list. Bob Kohl was the lone original author of the list. It was he who wrote the first draft and then submitted it to all for their comments. I have since changed the way I refer to the ZEC duties. I now say: "The ZEC duties, as originally written by Bob Kohl, amended and approved by the RECC, and sanctioned by the ZC." Hopefully that covers all of the bases. :-) bk> More to the point is some of the RECs convenient use of the bk> list selectively without "remembering" that the list also bk> notes the use of an interim ZEC. So? bk> When I was elected, I started sending out netmail looking for bk> a replacement for the Elist keeper. In the end, there were two bk> individuals that were working on a replacement for the Elist: bk> Thom (the appointed replacement Elist keeper), and Marshall bk> Presnell. Marshall is a professional software engineer and has bk> been for years. Marshall was also a Fidonet sysop for many many bk> years. He offered to help and, as Thom was, in the process of bk> building an Elist replacement. As things progressed, I bk> continued to give feedback on the issue to the ZC in an bk> impartial manner as I felt I was expected to. Without consulting or informing the RECs in any way. Yes, Bob Kohl chose to keep the information about Marshall's project a secret from the RECC. The RECC could have made a more informed decision on the best replacement for the echolist if it had been properly informed of any and all projects that any *ECs knew of. bk> In the end, Thom was selected by Bob, and my congratulations bk> or condolences as the case maybe. Amen! BH> As I must continually remind you because the editor keeps BH> asking, Kohl's first act after winning the ZEC election was to BH> ask the RECC how he should go about removing an NEC from office. BH> He did remove the NEC. bk> Wrong, as noted both in the REC echo and in other echos the FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 4 13 Jul 1998 bk> question was one that was brought to me by the *C side and bk> possibly looking for an alternative to the normal means of bk> an RC dealing with the issue. What's wrong? The NEC *was* removed from office. That is a fact. If Bob Kohl was not also an RC, there would be no issue, since ZECs cannot remove NEC flags from the nodelist. bk> There is nothing wrong with looking for an alternative means bk> to deal with an issue except of course when it's turned around bk> to make it look like there's political motivation involved. Bob Kohl has said many times that he does not discuss his RC duties in the REC echo, yet above he says that he brought up the issue himself. Both cannot be correct. If the motivation was not political, I invite Bob Kohl to explain what the reasons were for the removal of the NEC flag. BH> He soon removed an NC. bk> I'd like everyone to remember Ben's statement that what goes bk> on in Reg 10 is none of his business. Sounded good at the bk> time, didn't it? It still sounds good now! I'd like to remind Bob Kohl of the entire statement about Region 10, as it was posted a few weeks ago in Fido- News: BH> Region 10 business, frankly, is none of our business. However, BH> things that happen in Region 10 do make it easy to see what can BH> happen when the "multiple hats" suggestion in Policy 4 is BH> ignored. Translation: I am by no means interested in the internal workings of Region 10 so that I can change them. I am only interested in them because it proves that if Bob Kohl acts this destructive in his own region, it is bound to overflow into his Zone duties. That is when it is important to me. BH> His REC quit, saying that he could no longer stand working with BH> Kohl. bk> Ben's memory of the time line is a bit shakey. The REC quit bk> before any action about this issue took place. Time is not the issue. The REC did quit because he could not stand working under Bob Kohl's thumb. That is a fact. BH> He disclosed some in-transit netmail. bk> Ben also likes to paint with a very broad brush. There were bk> two complaints brought up. One was dismissed, the other was FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 5 13 Jul 1998 bk> explained and apologized for. Someone sent me netmail and I bk> cc'ed Bob Satti when I responded. The fact is that the netmail was not "to" Bob Kohl. And: bk> While technically it is disclosing in-transit mail, ... Bob Kohl admits to disclosing in-transit netmail. The sender and recipient probably do not care if it was "technical" or not, and I do not think that the writers of FidoNet's policy did either, else they might have written the section on in-transit mail differently, perhaps choosing to cover this exact situation. I suppose it just goes to show that Bob Kohl cannot be trusted with the confidentiality of any netmail passing through his system, so everyone would be wise to use other more private means of transport, as suggested in policy. BH> Are these the actions of a active, effective, responsible ZEC? BH> Can you honestly say "yes" in good conscience? bk> Is this the same Ben Hamilton that suggested to a sysop that bk> he should change his node number to poll someone? Using an bk> unissued nodenumber? Ben should spend a moment reading P4. I have read P4 many times. I suggested to a sysop that he change his node number to something that a new sysop might use, like /9999, long enough to determine whether or not Bob Kohl had him passworded out of his system or not. There is no harm in that, as no mail transfer would be taking place, and the rest of the sysop information (sysop name, location, etc.) would still be passed. It should also be noted that, if Bob Kohl did indeed password this sysop out of his system without his knowledge, this entire procedure would not be necessary. Since Bob Kohl will not answer (or has not yet answered) whether or not he did password out this sysop, we may never know the truth. If the truth is that the problem was elsewhere, I would appreciate an explanation so that I can offer an apology. bk> I find it interesting that [Ben Hamilton is] now suggesting bk> behavior that is generally frowned upon or considered illegal bk> per P4. I encourage Bob Kohl to quote the section of policy that states that my suggestion is unacceptable. -Ben Hamilton FidoNet 1:124/7008 Internet: ben.hamilton@compconn.net ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 6 13 Jul 1998 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Z1C tries to bully Z1R10 refugees by Dave Beach, 1:163/222 An entire net in Zone 1 Region 10 recently voted unanimously that they had seen enough of their region and wanted to go somewhere they thought they'd be appreciated in Fidonet. Region 12 accepted them as net 1:2404. In a similar development, Region 12 accepted as a Regional Independent node the former Regional Echomail Coordinator of Z1R10, who had been hounded out of Fidonet by Bob Kohl, the present (and perpetual?) Z1R10C. Eager readers may wish to refer to another article submitted for this issue, which documents a survey in which 74.2% of respondants indicated that they were not satisfied with Bob Kohl representing them as their Regional Coordinator. These nodelist developments were reflected in nodelist.191. Welcome 1:12/120 and net 1:2404, Region 12 is pleased you wanted to become part of our little corner of Fidonet. The Zone 1 Coordinator, Bob Satti, recently had this to say about the issue: BS> I notice you have 'adopted' an R10 node as an RI (independent), BS> and an R10 network in total. I was not consulted about either BS> of these items, and I doubt that RC10 was consulted. BS> I'll come straight to the point... BS> I want to see a segment arrive here from you before next BS> Thursday's (July 16th, 1998) nodelist production with the BS> aforementioned network AND the RI items deleted. BS> These nodes are not to stay (or reappear) in your segment BS> unless the RCC overrules me on this matter. I'm not sure why Bob Satti thinks that Fidonet sysops are his subjects, bound to accept his dictates, but he's surely forgotten that Fidonet is a loose collection of sysops and systems who share some common goals, and is not about forcing them into political subdivisions because you're a Coordinator-for-life and have decided that means you must Exercise Power Over Your People. Perhaps rather than use bullying tactics to force sysops to do something they've collectively and unanimously decided they don't want, Bob Satti's time would be better spent analyzing what's going so tragically wrong in Z1R10 that would prompt an entire network to thumb its nose at its regional nodelist clerk. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 7 13 Jul 1998 Eager readers may wish to refer to another article submitted for this issue, which documents a survey in which a majority of respondants indicated that they were not satisfied with Bob Satti representing them as their Zone Coordinator. It's up to you, Bob. Will you acknowledge that the "command and control" philosophy that you and some of your colleagues on the Zone 1 RC Council have promoted and promulgated are running this Zone headlong into oblivion, or will you sit back while it happens, secure in the knowledge that when the last Zone 1 sysop calls it quits at least you'll still be "in charge"? ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- Region 25 Has a New REC Damian Walker, 2:2502/666 Occasionally I see requests from international moderators for information on getting echomail to and from region 25, better known to some as the UK. So I thought it might be appropriate to post in Fidonews the summarised results of our recent REC election. The positions were: 1st. John Burden 41 votes 2nd. Steven Gare 14 votes Congratulations to John Burden and commiserations to Steven Gare. John Burden's address is 2:255/1, although shortly he should be contactable at the region's standard REC address, 2:25/10. I hope someone finds this information useful. ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Story of Statistics by Bob Kohl, 1:102/861 > Zone 1 Region 10 nodes speak out on the issue of the recent > "election" for Z1R10C > by Dave Beach, 1:163/222 > On the subject of the recent Zone 1 R10C "election", the Z1C, > Bob Satti, made recent statements in the Z1C echo that indicated > that he had his finger on the pulse of Z1R10, and that anybody > who questioned him on the issues simply didn't have all the > information. Interesting to note that, unlike Dave Beach or Doc (Gossip Queen) Logger, the ZC does take the time to look at both sides of an issue and, of course, the facts. It would seem that the self- appointed Guardians Of Fidonet up in net 163 do not have those FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 8 13 Jul 1998 capabilities given their preference for "Trial by public opinion, hearsay and innuendo". > Bowing to growing public pressure to do something > about a system that has him maintained in office with the support > of unelected, appointed Regional Coordinators, Of course Dave and Doc forget that there are many elected RCs since it serves their purpose better to misrepresent this fact. > began. Only NCs in the region were eligible to vote, and Bob Kohl As is the favored way of many Fidonet sysops including several from their admin friends in southern regions. > had spent the last couple of months replacing NCs with which, as > Z1R10C, he had decided he "couldn't work". Ahh yes! The use of 'facts according to Dave'. Got to hand it to him, since he seems to have no shame. There was only 1 NC replaced for the mentioned reason. In fact during the course of my term as RC there have only been two "active" NCs replaced. Both the NCs that were replaced could be counted on to vote against me in the RC 10 election due to the influence that the old NCs have in their respective nets. One of the old NCs and the past NEC run their echomail feeds for free. A healthy influence on the way that the sysops of the net think since bribery is an well established source of influence down through the ages. > Needless to say, Bob Satti's handpicked incumbent, Bob Kohl, was > the successful candidate. I'm sure that Dave couldn't possible accept the fact that there are many NCs in Reg 10 that seem to little if any problems in the way Reg 10 has worked these past years. > for each warm body in Region 10 minus the Network Coordinators. > The survey forms were all host-routed through the recipients' > respective NCs. > 36 replies were received, of which one was from an NC who had > mistakenly been sent a survey form (and whose reply was therefore 36 replies! Wow, now there's a real representation of the region with many times that number in sysops. It's interesting to note that Dave little submission to the Snooze and in the echos runs almost on a par with those of Spiro Agnew many years ago. It would also due to note that the number of "dissatisfied" sysops runs roughly about this same number and the "infamous" list server had about just this many particpants. What a coincidence! I'd have to say that Dave took this survey into net 2004 before they decided to "go north", chuckle...he needed those numbers. Yep, nice to know that Dave thinks that roughly 10% of a region is a FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 9 13 Jul 1998 true repesentation of that region's opinion. Besides Dave, please don't bother to tip-toe around that fact that Bob Satti is not on your list. We've known that you have wanted him and at least two other RCs out for some time now along with some of the other misfits and gossip queens that are local to you. Nor do we need Ben Hamilton's hypocrisy towards other region's affairs. Below is a rather typical response from a Reg 10 sysop towards Dave's little poll: Msg # 193 Kill/Sent Date: 27 Jun 98 10:19:38 From: Joe Nicholson To: All Subj: Outside interference _____________________________________________________________________ Did anyone other than NET202 receive netmail with a survey from Dave Beach in Canada? We don't need interference in R10 from any other region, and I refuse to answer when the person who asked Beach to conduct the survey refuses to identify himself. I think he's a yellow-bellied, chicken-livered skunk to hide behind Beach. ... 9-1-1 makes firefighters come. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 --- GEcho 1.00 * Origin: 9-1-1 San Diego's HOTTEST BBS (619) 441-9679 (1:202/911) SEEN-BY: 10/2 3 102/2 125 861 103/328 125/5109 161/84 202/5 701 707 SEEN-BY: 202/746 800 805 911 1100 1330 1401 1601 203/3333 205/1701 SEEN-BY: 207/0 208/1 212/1002 213/213 218/907 219/300 345/0 2004/209 3000sl/001347 BK ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zone 1 Region 10 nodes speak out on the issue of the recent "election" for Z1R10C by Dave Beach, 1:163/222 On the subject of the recent Zone 1 R10C "election", the Z1C, Bob Satti, made recent statements in the Z1C echo that indicated that he had his finger on the pulse of Z1R10, and that anybody who questioned him on the issues simply didn't have all the information. Bowing to growing public pressure to do something FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 10 13 Jul 1998 about a system that has him maintained in office with the support of unelected, appointed Regional Coordinators, he called an "election" for the position of Z1R10C and provided the sysops with a mere couple of days in which to nominate candidates before voting began. Only NCs in the region were eligible to vote, and Bob Kohl had spent the last couple of months replacing NCs with which, as Z1R10C, he had decided he "couldn't work". Needless to say, Bob Satti's handpicked incumbent, Bob Kohl, was the successful candidate. In order to try and verify the statements that Bob Satti made, a survey of Z1R10 nodes was commissioned. Some 339 survey forms were sent out, the intent being to account for each warm body in Region 10 minus the Network Coordinators. The survey forms were all host-routed through the recipients' respective NCs. 36 replies were received, of which one was from an NC who had mistakenly been sent a survey form (and whose reply was therefore not counted), one was a completely blank netmail other than header info and kludge lines (a request for clarification was sent, no reply received), one was from a node who claimed utter and complete apathy, and two were demands to know what right I had to be asking Region 10 sysops for their opinions on anything. Despite persistent rumours that a Region 10 NC netmailed my NC and RC demanding to know what I was doing "butting into Region 10 business", I never did hear from her myself. The responses break down as follow: ---------------- | Question (1) | ---------------- Are you aware that it's common practice in other Regions to have direct sysop voting for the RC position? Yes 51.6% No 45.2% Other 0.03% ---------------- | Question (2) | ---------------- Do you feel that your Network Coordinator adequately consulted you for your views prior to casting his/her vote in the election? Yes 87.1% No 12.9% ---------------- | Question (3) | ---------------- FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 11 13 Jul 1998 Were you informed by your Network Coordinator as to how his/her vote was cast? Yes 90.3% No 9.7% ---------------- | Question (4) | ---------------- Are you in agreement with how your Network Coordinator cast his/her vote? Yes 83.9% No 9.7% Other 6.5% "Can't answer since he won't tell me which way he voted. It was top secret..." "don't know, [he] refuses to say how he voted." ---------------- | Question (5) | ---------------- The Zone 1 Coordinator, Bob Satti, has stated that he called the kind of election that he preferred. Are you in agreement with the way this election was conducted? Yes 12.9% No 87.1% "As all but two of the NC's of this region are all appointed or grandfathered in by the RC, a NC only vote only showed the support of those NC's who are afraid of or in cahoots with Bob Kohl." "There was little if any communication." ---------------- | Question (6) | ---------------- Would you have preferred to have the opportunity to directly cast your own vote in the RC election? Yes 87.1% No 9.7% Other 3.2% ---------------- | Question (7) | ---------------- Are you aware that there has been at least one policy complaint FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 12 13 Jul 1998 filed against Bob Kohl relating to his disclosure of in-transit netmail, and that the Zone 1 Regional Echomail Coordinator Council has voted overwhelmingly that they do not support Bob Kohl in one of his other capacities, that of Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator? Yes 80.6% No 19.4% ---------------- | Question (8) | ---------------- Are you satisfied with Bob Kohl representing you as Region 10 Coordinator? Yes 12.9% No 74.2% Other 12.9% "Bob Kohl does NOT belong in any administration position within Fidonet." "He does his job (for the most part) but his people skills suck, he can never give a clear answer, and he holds personal grudges." ---------------- | Question (9) | ---------------- Are you satisfied with Bob Satti representing you as Zone 1 Coordinator? Yes 32.3% No 51.6% Other 16.1% "I thought I was at first. The more I see, the less I believe he is what a ZC should be." "I feel he is (sic) been one sided in the RC10 mater (sic) and should now also step down." ----------------- | Question (10) | ----------------- May the commissioners of this survey match you with your responses as part of the compilation and publication processes (if you answer no, your identity will be kept confidential, provided you don't route your answer through someone who might divulge the contents of in-transit netmail)? Yes 80.6% No 19.4% FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 13 13 Jul 1998 "Just don't get me thrown out... He has done that to net xxx and without regard if it hurts Fido or a Network in general." --------------------- | General comments: | --------------------- "It would have been nice to have a more advanced noticed (sic) to the election. I believe several sysops may not have had an opportunity to voice their opinions with their Net coordinators." "I am leaving Fidonet as a direct result of this election. The way it was conducted shows the ZC cannot perform his duties. The results are not representative of the concerns of the members of this region. Also, the NC's acted as the sysops representatives; thier (sic) votes should have been published." "My BBS will go down on or before July 31st, because of the recent decisions of Satti, and the so-called election of Kohl." "I am glad to see that this is being done after the so-called election farce that was held in our Region." "Down with King Kohl, and Bob Satti is next on our list if he fails to recognize our backing him so far, and relying on him to impeach Kohl for malfeasance of office. I hear the grass roots growing!" "Have a great day!" ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 14 13 Jul 1998 ================================================================= COLUMNS ================================================================= Dear Editorbeing, This article is submitted by Doc Logger (163/110) who was busy drinking Absinthe on the slopes of Gornergraat. Across the valley, the Matterhorn rises in purple splendour and below, chubby gentlemen in leather training pants are blowing elongated horns which produce sounds akin to moose in full rut. Roll da flic, Zorch.... Dear Reverend Visage, Being stuck in Switzerland in July has many drawbacks, not the least of which is that the charming international tourists who are busily photographing everything in sight. Even the bronze frog which spouts into a fountain in Zermatt has started to develop a squint from the incessant camera flash discharges. The Snooz was rather chunky last week including two articles by Kohl whose ghostwriter made their presence obvious by the lack of spelling mistakes and mangled grammar. Even His Zorchness' editorial was a monument of disingenuousness. It would probably be unkind to mention that His Zorchness has been in high dungeon lately over a supposed "second" elist robot program. What makes Zorch's editorial bellowing more amusing is that he forgot to disclose his personal interest in the other elist proposal. Mercifully, any newspaper writer who has a conflict of interest takes pains to make disclosures and we can look forward to seeing Zorch correcting his inadvertent omission of that relevant fact. I note that Kohl's ghostwriter had this cheesy excuse for his disclosure of in transit netmail. "There were two complaints brought up. One was dismissed, the other the was explained and apologized for. Someone sent me netmail and I cc'd Bob Satti." Actually, they did not send netmail *to* Kohl, they sent it to another system which passed through Kohl's system. Kohl extracted the contents on the way through, responded to it, revealed its contents, and then made the fatuous claim that it was a technical glitch resulting from the way his system is set up. If Kohl is to be believed ( a dubious proposition) then he must have been disclosing *all* intransit netmail to Bob Satti. Satti, being a man of few words, has studiously avoided confirming whether Kohl's version of reality is correct. Kohl cites the other instance where he was caught disclosing in transit netmail as being "dismissed" which is not to say that the act didn't happen. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 15 13 Jul 1998 In Kohl's second alleged article wherein he uses the word "diatribes" which is well beyond his actual vocabulary grasp, Kohl winds his way through a cloud of smoke without bothering to deny that his vendetta against Ruth Argust results from a pathetic incident over a horse. I am quite willing to post a retraction if Kohl can send me a correction as to the facts. At the risk of writing a tautological article that references past Snoozs, I was disappointed by Andrea Santos' article which advocates the equivalent of designing a camel by striking a committee charged with designing a horse. The issue is not the dispersion of titles and responsibilities for the Snooz, but the simple need for people to submit content. Creating nine new admin Snooz positions will do no good at all unless those individuals are actually writing copy. If there is a criticism to be made of His Zorchness, it is the fact that unlike previous editors of the Snooz, he does not appear to be actively soliciting articles. As an example, I'd dearly love to see an article from some of our Russian brethren describing the changes over the last decade that have fostered the incredible growth of fidonet. I'd also like to see an articulate discussion of the Zone2 policy debate which seems to be surfacing in the ZCC echo. On the matter of his Zorchness' policy complaints against Ruth Argust, it is simply amazing that he was joined by three other cretins who filed identical complaints. Knowles, George Kuhl, and Dan Sherman should have a deserved place in the Fidonet Hall of Shame for lending their names to the venal actions of Frezberg in this matter. There is something truly rotten in the state of Denmark if these idiots are the NCs of which anyone in Fidonet could be proud. It is small wonder that the stench of Kohl's presence pervades Region10 considering the low quality of the NCs that he has appointed. If ever there was a case to be made for the fact that Peefour only arms socially maladroit morons, a reading of Frezberg's policy complaint would suffice to settle the argument. Yo Zorch, did you vote twice in the ZEC election? I have some interesting quotes for this week's column. The first is taken from a message that Bob Kohl sent out to his loyal fartcatchers in Region 10: "You'll note that not every NC and NEC in Reg 10 is getting this note. I'm sending it mainly to the key group of Admin folks in Reg 10 that I've worked with these past years to rebuild and revive Reg 10 or that have shown concern for the smooth operation of the Region and their own nets. It is also this group that I expect to keep this note within the group. ... FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 16 13 Jul 1998 We are Reg 10, let's make sure that everyone is aware of this, including Bob Satti. And as a statement from the NC's of Reg 10, I sincerely hope you'll support and sign a PC against Ruth when it gets put into motion. While I could have easily done it myself, I sincerely think it sets a bad precident for my to do so or to be involved in it directly." That gem was written by Kohl in an effort to garner support for a Policy Complaint campaign organized by His Zorchness. The following quote is very long, but well worth including because it contains the entire text of Bob Duckworth's ruling on Zorch's policy complaint. (For those concerned about the niceties, I have received Bob Duckworth's permission to quote his ruling in full) Read and weep... * * * * * "Thu 25 Jun 98 22:21 By: Bob Duckworth, * *Bob's Duck Pond (2004/209) Re: Policy Complaint filed by you against Ruth Argust Original to: Zorch Frezberg (1:205/1701) Zorch Frezberg, It is extremely disturbing that I have to send this message at all. With your being a Network Coordinator I am sure you understood the action you were taking when you filed a Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust. Per Policy 4.07 a Policy Complaint is not an action to be taken lightly. Your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust is rejected in total. The opening portion of your Policy Complaint against Ms. Argust is a very disjointed mish-mash and very hard to follow. However, Ms. Argust did rebut your statements, and also pointed out that some of the submitted documents have also been tampered with (ie. missing subject lines and appended orgin lines.) A single netmail tittled "official inquiry" does not constitute an earnest effort to resolve a problem. Ms. Argust submitted a copy of a message in which she replied to you in the hopes of resolving the problem between the two of you. She claims that you never responded to the questions she raised in netmail in reponse to your "offical inquiry" netmail, and you failed to provide any proof that you did in fact respond. You did include the netmail that she replied to your "offical inquiry" netmail with so by all indications, you in fact were the one who failed to resolve the problems. In hopes that you did indeed follow policy and continue your attempt to resolve the problem, I did read all the echomail which you enclosed, and did not see her questions to you answered via that medium either, although FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 17 13 Jul 1998 she did in fact provide evidence of why her name was presented during the EMSI portion of mailer handshaking. Reading through Policy 4.07 it does not say that the informal attempts to resolve a problem prior to the filing of a policy complaint must be made in private. That you failed to try complete a resolution informally can not be blamed on the fact that she posted anything in the echoes when in fact you could have netmailed her and asked that she work with you only via netmail on what you considered to be problems. I reject this policy complaint from you in total because of your failure to continue your attempts to resolve the problems. I am also presenting my findings on each of your separate charges. zf> = CHARGE 1 zf> = Violation of Netmail confidentiality under section 2.1.6.2; specifically, the release of netmail for the purpose of annoying others, and in this case, involving others not in the chain of appeal, as defined in Section 9.1, last para of Policy 4.07; further, that such release was done in order to make improper accusations and undue disruption of FidoNetconstitutes EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR. zf> I find in favor of Ms. Argust on charge 1. The netmail which you sent to her with the subject line of "offical inquiry" was not marked as confidential. Since you failed to mark this message as confidential, Polcy 4.07 Section 2.1.6.2 shall apply here, specifically where it states "The issue of private mail which is addressed to you is more difficult than the in-transit question treated in the previous section. A common legal opinion holds that when you receive a message it becomes your property and you have a legal right to do with it what you wish. Your legal right does not excuse you from annoying others. In general, sensitive material should not be sent using FidoNet. This ideal is often compromised, as FidoNet is our primary mode of communication. In general, if the sender of a message specifically requests in the text of the message that the contents be kept confidential, release of the message into a public forum may be considered annoying." It is clear in policy that the message in question was hers to do with what she wished. If the public release of your netmail was annoying to you, it is not covered by policy since you did not take the proper measure to prevent her from posting your message in a public echo by clearly FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 18 13 Jul 1998 marking the message as confidential. Even more important, I did not see any proof that Ruth Argust disclosed the netmail in question. All I saw in her post was the header and the cc:'s of the messages. There was no disclosure at all of the body text. zf> = CHARGE 2 = 'As indicated in the logs submitted by the various NCs of Region 10, it is clear that the system Ruth Argust used to mail out from was representing itself as 1:2004/0. Ruth has offered several clarifications in an effort to explain this, but has not explained the one most significant problem; whyshe felt it necessary to register the software *as* 1:2004/0, since she and Gerry claim that their net has elections (See CHARGE2.001).The fact that the clarifications are specious is obvious...thenode in question will consistently display itself as 1:2004/0 regardless of who the NC is, and will interfere in mail routing and distribution upon their removal/departure from the posts that they hold. This failure, along with the fact that numerous mailer programs cannot distinguish between a multi-line and a single-line node, as seen in the attached logs, clearly shows the connecting mailer as being 1:2004/0. There is no specific mailer in place which lists Gerry Calhoun as NC2004, operating 1:2004/0 as the nodelist defines. This is indicated in the various logs included in the evidence file (See CHARGE2.004, CHARGE2.005, CHARGE2.006 and CHARGE2.007). This would be no significant matter, and likely to be dismissed, per Ruth's numerous claims that "this is just the way that the software is set up", save for _one_ salient point: In the recent Z1 EchoMail Coordinator election, Ruth Argust had submitted her vote, presenting herself as "1:2004/0", and Gerry Calhoun had submitted his vote, presenting himself as "1:2004/205" (See CHARGE2.002 and CHARGE2.003; note that CHARGE2.003 is the roster of voting nodes from the Election Coordinator). Likewise, as can be noted in the log files, it does not matter to which phone number/node that one is connected to...*all* nodes on the connection present themselves as "1:2004/0" and with Ruth Argust as the sysop of the node reserved for the N2004C, without regard for the reality of the situation. This can be seen in the log files, as the "home node", "Node #2" and "Node #3" all present as "1:2004/0" on connection, and all as "Ruth Argust". Under Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, the NC is normally FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 19 13 Jul 1998 responsible for the exactness of the network nodelist segment, and also may not delegate the responsibility to mediate disputes. Given the nature of the identity problem with the /0 node, and with regard to who the system is operated by, as well as the chaos which such a system identification can cause, is clearly disruptive now, and will be disruptive to the smooth operation of FidoNet, the Region and their own network in the near future. Such disruption is in violation of Policy 4.07, Sections 1.2.1.1 (identifying users), section 2.1.3 (identifying who is responsible for entering traffic), and Section 1.2.8, second para (smooth operation). Since the system in question was co-operated by the then-NC of Net 2004, the above should have been well known and familiar as a part of the knowledge of Policy 4.07 that all Network Coordinators are to be familiar with. However, as the actual software is registered by someone who is not nor has ever been the Network Coordinator, as well as co-opting the reserved address for the Net Coordinator of Network 2004, the action is now the responsibility of the node operator...which is listed as being Ruth Argust. Such actions and efforts by Ruth Argust do constitute EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR.' zf> Zorch Frezberg, you have not provided proof that Ruth Argust sent mail out from the Fido address of 1:2004/0. During handshaking in the emsi portion, the line SYSOP: Ruth Argust was presented. Note that Policy 4.07 is very clear in sections; 1 Overview 1.2.1 Individual Systems and System Operators 1.2.1.1 Users 2.1.3 Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node 1.2.8 (second paragraph) 1.3.4 Nodelist that the system operator is defined by the nodelist. Your statement that the system software is registered to 1:2004/0 is not backed up by the included file CHARGE2.001. What I see in CHARGE2.001 are statments by Ms. Argust that the mailer software is registered in her name. She further states the the system the software operates on is co-operated by Gerry Calhoun and presents the addresses of 1:2004/0, 1:2004/200 and 1:2004/201. Nowhere does she state the software is registered as 1:2004/0. In Ms. Argust's reply to the Policy Complaint, she included a message from the software author with what must be placed in the sysop name field for the software to operate in the registered mode. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 20 13 Jul 1998 You further claim that the software will always present itself as 1:2004/0 without any proof to this fact. The addresses for the system which Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun co-operate can be changed at will. This claim is based solely upon your conjecture and is not backed by any evidence you have submitted. Policy 4.07 is very clear the charges must be supported by evidence. For a NC to make such a claim and provide no evidence, displays an obvious lack of understanding of Policy 4.07. After Zorch Frezberg's netmail message with the subject line of "offical inquiry" was received, a change was made to the system which had the address of 1:2004/0 to present SYSOP: Gerry Calhoun NODE X (where X is the node connected to) in addiction to SYSOP: Ruth Argust. This shows that Ms. Argust did attempt to rectify what Zorch Frezberg had a problem with, although Frezberg did not specify what portion of Policy 4.07 mandates what must be presented during emsi handshaking. Ms. Argust claims the system in question had been functioning in the same manner well over two years. During that time, she says she had never received any other comments as to the way the system presented itself. That she reconfigured the system after your concerns were voiced shows that she made an earnest and honest attempt at resolving the issue. The fact that Zorch Frezberg never responded back after Ms. Argust changed the manner her software was setup shows that Zorch Frezberg did not attempt to resolve the issue. Zorch Frezberg also failed to state what section of Policy 4.07 was being violated by presenting SYSOP: Ruth Argust during the emsi handshake. Zorch Frezberg's "salient point" is based upon the fact that Mr. Belcke recorded the vote as orginating from the wrong system. Mr. Belcke was in error in recording the vote and Ms. Argust attempted through netmail to correct the way the vote was recorded. The blame for Mr. Belcke to not correct the vote after he was in fact informed of his error does not reflect on Ms. Argust. Ms. Argust did include copies of her exchange with Mr. Belcke with only the candidate names and her password blocked out and Mr. Belcke's replies. Zorch Frezberg, you should read the Policy 4.07 in its entirity and not just read it so that you can file a Policy Complaint. Policy 4.07 clearly states that the system operator is defined by the nodelist. Zorch Frezberg, you have failed to show where Policy 4.07 or any approved FTS document mandates what MUST be shown during emsi handshaking or in a mailers logs. Zorch Frezberg, you claim that there was an "identity" with the /0 node in net 2004. However, Policy is quite clear as to who the /0 node belongs to as Policy 4.07 clearly states that the nodelist defines who operate what nodes. You further state "Such disruption is in violation of Policy FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 21 13 Jul 1998 4.07, Sections 1.2.1.1 (identifying users), section 2.1.3 (identifying who is responsible for entering traffic), and Section 1.2.8, second para (smooth operation)." Yet, those same sections clearly state that the nodelist defines the operator of a node. The system in question was and is co-operated by the then NC. This was in fact the system the then NC used to perform his NC duties. Being the system that did such duties, it rightly used the /0 node number. The node operator of the system that presented the /0 address has never been Ruth Argust, since the node operator per Policy 4.07 is defined by the nodelist issued by the I.C. and had always been listed to Gerry Calhoun until his removal from that position. You are correct in one small statement in this CHARGE 2. That is that the NC is to be familiar with Policy 4.07. However, your lack of knowledge in regards to this charge inparts a great deal of questioning in regards to your knowledge of Policy 4.07. I totally reject and dismiss CHARGE 2 and clear Ms. Argust of any wrong doing in regards to CHARGE 2 and Policy 4.07 for the following reasons. 1. The netmail with the subject "official inquiry" does not appear to be an attempt to resolve a problem, rather it appears to be an investigation. After Ms. Argust changed what her system presented upon emsi handshaking and contacted Zorch Frezberg back, Zorch Frezberg did not continue to attempt to resolve his "perceived" problem. Therefore, I can not find that an attempt was made to resolve this in an informal manner. In fact, I find that Zorch Frezberg has not made any comment on what was presented after Ms. Argust changed what was presented during the emsi handshake after Zorch Frezberg expressed his concerns. Therefore, I can only conclude that the problem was resolved. If a problem is resolved between two sysops, there is therefore no need for a policy complaint. 2. Zorch Frezberg failed to state what section of Policy 4.07 or what part of any FTS document was violated by the presentation of SYSOP: Ruth Argust during emsi handshaking. It being that Zorch Frezberg is a member of the standing FTSC, he should be familiar with the FTS documents and been able to provide such evidence. 3. Zorch Frezberg has failed to provide what section of Policy 4.07 states what must be present in a mailers logfile, therefore the mailer logfiles are not relevent in this issue. 4. Zorch Frezberg as a Network Coordinator should be familiar enough with Policy 4.07 to know that the nodelist as issued by the I.C. defines who a system operator is. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 22 13 Jul 1998 5. Zorch Frezberg has failed to present a single message signed by Ruth Argust as Network 2004 Coordinator. zf> ' = CHARGE 3 In addition to the above, the constant posting of mail intended for the discussion of administrative functions in Region 10 has been consistently cross-posted out of netmail and Region 10 administrative conferences, in an effort to "expose" matters in Region 10. However, the messages posted to national and international echoes are also with respect to questions of character and ability for other posts and actions, with the use of Region 10 as no more than a cover for harrassment and calls for interference. The sheer volume of mail, both in echomail and netmail, has started a self-regenerative loop with rumor feeding rumor, and rumor then becoming "fact" in the minds of many. For example, there has been a consistently posted comment that a "netmail smear campaign" was begun by Bob Kohl; yet no evidence of such a message has been made available, and all inquiries for a copy of it have been fruitless. Everyone seemed to have "heard of it", but not one individual or group of individuals has been able to demonstrate a copy of such messages. Likewise, as the message is supposedly between other individuals and sent to Argust and Calhoun, the disclosure of such contents is in violation of Policy 4.07, Section 2.1.6.1, as no Policy Complaint has been attached to such a message, and by their own description, the message was sent as NetMail, and not as EchoMail. This portion of the Policy Complaint will be conceded and withdrawn, provided proper evidence is shown that the so-called "netmail smear" message was posted as EchoMail or as 'private mail' intended to keep a 'sysop-only' echo restricted. However, as to the portion in which excessive echomail and netmail is being generated for no other purpose than to interfere in the ability of the Region Coordinator to perform duties properly, I will not withdraw that portion of the Policy Complaint, and will carry it forward regardless. The specific harm, per Section 1.3.5, is that the efforts of Argust and others have caused Region 10 to be unable to locate and obtain an acceptable and qualified Regional EchoMail Coordinator. The annoyance is now excessive in that the failure to appoint a new REC has become a 'rallying point' in use by Argust and others in a new wave of harrassment, despite being caused by the efforts of Argust and others (See CHARGE3.ZIP, please note summation in CHARGE3.000). FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 23 13 Jul 1998 Further, that Ruth Argust has made the effort and succeeded in posting to a Regional administrative echomail conference that she had been specifically removed is a more clear indication that her interests are specifically for the purpose of disruption of Region administration; significantly, since this requires the Regional Coordinator take additional actions to prevent any further incursions, and thus adding to his duties and efforts. Inteference on the Network, Regional and Zone levels indicates EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING BEHAVIOR (See CHARGE3.042).' zf> CHARGE 3 deals with echomail. While some points dealing with echomail are mentioned in Policy 4.07, the points you, Zorch Frezberg, bring up in CHARGE 3 are not applicable here. 2.1.6.1 deals with IN-TRANSIT netmail. In reading your evidence for CHARGE 3, I do not see that Ms. Argust posted any netmail at all, let alone any IN-TRANSIT netmail. If she had posted netmail addressed to her and sent to her, it was, therefore, her personal property to do with what she pleased. 1.3.5 Deals with excessively annoying behavior. Zorch Frezberg, you claim that Ms. Argusts posts are excessively annoying because they are preventing Bob Kohl, the R10C, from performing his duties. Yet, you have not presented a single message from Bob Kohl that states such. You also state that talking about regional issues creates controversy. If such actions create controversy, then perhaps it is time to look at the issues. You further state that Ms. Argust posted to a regional Administrative echo from which she was specifically removed, yet you have not provided any proof for the claim that she was removed from this echo. I hereby reject and dismiss the claims against Ms. Argust in regards to CHARGE 3 and do not find her guilty of any wrong doing in respect to Policy 4.07 and CHARGE 3 for the following reasons. 1. You, Zorch Frezberg, have not provided any proof of any attempts to resolve this problem before filing this policy complaint as spelled out in Section 9.1 of Policy 4.07 2. You, Zorch Frezberg, have provided no proof that Ms. Argust was guilty of disclosing IN-TRANSIT netmail per your charge of violation of section 2.1.6.1. I see no netmail disclosed in any of the many posts you have presented. 3. You, Zorch Frezberg, seem to have this CHARGE 3 confused with CHARGE 1 where you claim she disclosed private and confidential mail and offer as evidence CHARGE1.002. I state again that she did not in fact disclose anything other FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 24 13 Jul 1998 than who received the mail since she quoted only the message header and the cc: list. Her quote stopped right after the private and confidential per Policy 4.07 line and she did not quote any of the message text. 4. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to prove that the behavior of Ms. Argust in any of the echomail had anything to do with preventing the RC from fulfilling his duties. zf> ' = CHARGE 4 = The fact that a number of public posts have been made by both Argust and Calhoun that they have no access to the Region 10 administrative echoes, and are thus locked out of any forum to present their case is proven false, based on a NetMail sent to the RHub Sysop, M Hernandez, at 1:10/2, in which Calhoun asked for all passwords to be removed from that system which allowed connection to his own (See CHARGE4.001). That Calhoun would ask is a clear indication that he is indeed aware of the other sources for the administrative echoes to be available; that he still denies his ability to access shows a contradiction that he has not been able to clarify adequately. Clearly, in EchoMail, Argust and Calhoun are claiming that they have no access to administrative echomail in Region 10. Yet in the NetMail shown in CHARGE4.001, Calhoun declares he wants an already available connection to remove all passwords, making it impossible for him to connect to an available source for those same administrative echomail areas for Region 10. The obvious problem is that Calhoun as well as Argust are maintaining a public image that is in direct opposition to what they know to be true...that a connection exists. Please note; the point is not that no connection exists, but that one was available to Net 2004, but was deliberately turned off and refused, at the same time as claims were made that no such connection was available to Net 2004. As with Charge #3, this seeming contradiction serves little purpose than to bring about unwarranted traffic for no other purpose than to harrass and interfere with the smooth operation of Region 10, by interfering with the duties of the Regional Coordinator, both directly and indirectly. By lying over the issue of connectivity, a deliberate action as opposed to an honest mistake, the fabrication becomes an intentional one, and thus excessively annoying behavior in that the action affects not one or two nodes but an entire Region of sysops, and thus affecting the smooth operation of Region 10. FIDONEWS 15-28 Page 25 13 Jul 1998 While the specifics against Gerry Calhoun are best addressed by the Regional Coordinator, that such actions were both condoned and carried out by Ruth Argust in an effort to both