Text 44164, 87 rader
Skriven 2006-12-18 13:16:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 44147 av Jeff Smith (1:14/0)
Ärende: Your Fidonews Website
=============================
Hello Jeff!

On Sunday December 17 2006 16:16, you wrote to me:

 MV>> FYI, the current FidoNews editor never stated that he no longer
 MV>> cares. What he stated was that he has given up on attempts to
 MV>> moderate the Fidonews echo.

Which I should narrow down to "giving up on attempting to moderate those who
refuse to be moderated". He has not giving up all together, he is still
moderating.

 MV>> Giving up <> not caring any more.

 JS>      Giving up BECAUSE of not caring anymore.

No, you are putting words into his mouth. My interpretation of his words is
that he gave up on the impossible.

 MV>> FidoNews echo <> FidoNews megazine.

 JS>      Bjorn is the link here. He is responsible for both.

Point is that he has not given up on the FidoNews magazine, as your words
suggested.

 MV>> You made a link from the website to the current editor. Thereby
 MV>> suggesting cause and effect and thereby suggesting responsibility.

 JS>      Although Jim controls the domain both Jim and Bjorn are listed
 JS> as contacts on the website.

Yes, there is that. To me that was just contact info for the FidoNews magazine,
not for the web site. I can see how the confusion arises, especially since
there is an email address for editor at fidonews.org. That address appears to
be non functional btw.

 JS> There was no specification made on the webpage that Bjorn had no
 JS> control or input regarding it's contents.

An omission that goes on the tab of Jim Barchuk. *He* is the one that
maintained the website.

I see that fidonews.info is still free. I could register that - like you
registered fidonews.net - and put up a web site where I say that you, Jeff
Smith, are a contact for that web site. Does that make you responsible for its
content?

 MV>> relation to that website? You wrote you could understand why that
 MV>> website was no longer maintained *since* the current editor, etc,
 MV>> etc. If you feel BF is not responsible for that, why did you
 MV>> write that sentence containing the "since"? To me that sounds
 MV>> like you put at least some of the blame on BF.

 JS>      Maybe a short statement on the website would have helped.
 JS>  The same could be said for Shannon's Fidonews website or any related
 JS> website that I might ever put up. A little info can often times avoid
 JS> erroneous conclusions.

Ah, so you *were* under the impression that Björn was somehow part responsible
for the web site no longer being updated.

Yes, a short statement on the web site would help, but the problem is that it
is not under anyone's control but the owner of the web site.

People apparently still have not learned to not take everything they find on
the web as gospel. What happened to fidonews.org is - unfortunately - rather
typical. FidoNet or Fidonews is not a legal body end therefore can not register
domain names. So what happens is that members of FidoNet register them in a
private capacity. Sometimes as "trustee" sometimes as a dissident to provide an
alternate platform. Mostly with the best of intentions, but as we all know,
best intentions sometimes turn sour and then there is no mechanism to rectify
the situation. There a over a dozen web sites relating to Fido, FidoNet or
FidoNews, many of them dead or in coma. The owner lost interest, often has left
FidoNet and neglected or simply refused to hand over the domain, so it just
sits there. And no one can do anything about it.

It is a reality of life that we just shall have to accept.

I wish you luck with fidonews.net. I hope it will not be a rehash of
fidonews.org.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.van.der.vlist.org (2:280/5555)