Text 23104, 282 rader
Skriven 2011-11-28 03:16:23 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 23095 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Echo List Service
=========================
Hello Roy,

 LL>> "It's not compulsory that your echo be on the listing, it's merely a
 LL>> service to let people know whats available." - Denise Webber, Zone3
 LL>> Elist Keeper, 1996

RW>Yeup.

A "service" that has no official status in FidoNet.

 LL>> One can argue that anybone who doesn't register an echo has no right
 LL>> to claim moderatorship of that echo.  Or do they?  After all, no
 LL>> private elisting has any official status in FidoNet.

RW>Actually, in Z1, the echolist

The echolist are many.  In fact, I have my very own echolist.
And my echolist has exactly the same status as Thom LaCosta's
echolist.  Which is to say, no official status in FidoNet.

RW>>has been used in an official capacity by the backbones

Using, or rather abusing, a private echolist in an official
capacity is an attempt to steal echoes from their rightful owners.
You know that, I know that, and everybody else knows that.  However,
that does not change the fact that no echolist has any official
status in FidoNet.

RW>who distribute echoes world wide

The NAB does not have a monopoly on FidoNet echoes.  Never
did, does not now, and never will.  For example, the Fidonews
echo originates from Zone 2.  There is no other legitimate
Fidonews echo anywhere in Fidonet.

RW>to ensure that there is a moderator

Steal an echo "to ensure that there is a moderator"?
My, my.  You are a card.

RW>and that the moderator has properly shown the capacity to
RW>provide such addresses as needed to send and receive netmail
RW>or email so that the backbones have a way to keep in touch,
RW>just in case something like a feed cut request by a person
RW>NOT the echolisted moderator may make.

Are fictional characters allowed to send and receive netmail
or email?  Are fictional characters allowed to be FidoNet sysops?
Are fictional characters allowed to request a feed cut and have
those feed cuts enforced?  Please tell me, Mr. Donald Duck.

RW>Your friend, Bob Klahn comes to mind in that scenario.

Bob Klahn is a real person, unlike a certain character in FidoNet
who thinks he/she is a preacher.

RW>What better way do you think is there to ensure that the request
RW>is from a legitimate source?

A legitimate source would be a real person using his/her real name.
Echolist or no echolist.

 LL>> Has anybody ever noticed that Bj"rn Felten did in fact elistt the
 LL>> Fidonews echo on Thom LaCosta's private elisting?

RW>Well, he tried to, but he never got the brass ring for his failed
RW>attempt.

NO ECHOLIST (PRIVATE OR PUBLIC) HAS ANY OFFICIAL STATUS IN FIDONET.

RW>Instead the Felten insisted, against the rules of the echolist,
RW>that all of the previous Fidonew editors be listed in the echolist
RW>as moderators, even though there was no space for that list in the
RW>entry.

The "rules of the echolist" do not apply in FidoNet.

However, viewing Thom LaCosta's site, Thom does include a means
for a moderator to list all previous moderators in the elisting.
The code for doing so is DESC.  Yes, the devil really is in the
details...

RW>Knowing the echolist software as I do, there is only room for
RW>two moderator's names to be listed.

Actually, that is misleading.  A moderator can name additional
moderators (co-moderators) in the description (code DESC).  And
pretty much anything else, including previous moderators, et al.

RW>What Felten attempted to do was rejected by the echolist keeper,
RW>as the listing didn't comply with his mode operendi'...

Doesn't really matter, since no echolist has any official status
in FidoNet.

RW>Seeing this, Jack Yates echolisted the echo and named himself as
RW>moderator here, recognizing the Felten as merely the Z2 moderator.

As far as I know, Jack Yates has never claimed to be the moderator
of this echo, nor has he ever claimed to be the editor of the Fidonews.
He merely elisted an echo by the name of Fidonews on Thom LaCosta's
elisting site.  Nothing more, nothing less.

RW>When Jack left Fidonet a few years ago, Ross inherited the listing
RW>from Jack,

Shannon Talley took it from Jack Yates.  Please do get your facts
straight.

RW>thus making him the Z1 moderator

Get this straight in your itty bitty head -

Björn Felten is the Z1 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.
Björn Felten is the Z2 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.
Björn Felten is the Z3 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.
Björn Felten is the Z4 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.
Björn Felten is the Z5 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.
Björn Felten is the Z6 moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter.

The previous moderator/editor of this echo/newsletter
(in all Zones) was Frank Vest.

RW>in the process with the same recognition of the Felten in Z2.

Jack Yates was never recognized as moderator of this echo in
any zone.  Neither was Shannon Talley, Ross Cassell, or Janis
Kracht.  But please feel free to continue your game of ":et's
pretend."  It quite amuses me.  :)

RW>When the Felten failed to curtail his constant jibberish
RW>about Z1, America especially, after ten years of which everyone
RW>was tired of hearing, your hero was cut off from the echo he
RW>thought he owned.

This echo is owned by the entire FidoNet community, not by any
single individual.  And it is the entire FidoNet community which
has named Björn Felten as moderator/editor of the Fidonews.  If,
at some point in time the entire FidoNet community chooses to
replace Björn Felten as moderator/editor, we will make it known
to him, in no uncertain terms, that is it is time for him to go.
However, we *LOVE* Björn Felten, and all of us would *LOVE* for
him to continue as moderator/editor of the Fidonews.

RW>Surprise, surprise.

It's a *LOVEFEST*.  Please feel free to join us.  :)

RW>I know your loyalties are with the Felten

My loyalties are with the entire FidoNet community.
Björn Felten is part of that community.  The so-called
"troika" is not.

RW>and I also know that you've burned way too many bridges
RW>to be allowed to return to the Z1 fold,

I am proud to say I am not part of the so-called "troika".
In fact, I would consider it to be an insult if I were to be
called a member of that evil entity.

RW>at least in this echo.

Björn Felten has welcomed me in this echo with open arms.

                 <Hugs to Björn>

RW>Like Ross has said and you have quoted; you and the
RW>Felten are using each other to ill gain. Too bad you're
RW>both rogues in your own little corner of Fidonet because
RW>when he fails, so do you.

"I am the voice of dissent!" - Noam Chomsky

Hey, Björn!  We have both graduated to Chomsky's level!
We should congratulate each other, and drink to the gods!

 LL>> Now ask yourself this one, simple question -

 LL>> Why should anybody be forced to register their own echo again?

RW>No one is forced to register an echo,

Then why did Shannon Talley elist this echo?
Why did Ross Cassell elist this echo?
Both Shannon and Ross are power freaks who want to control
others.  Not much different than any other egomaniac.  This
world has seen plenty of that kind - Adolf Hitler, Benito
Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhaffi, Bashir Assad, ...

RW>it's just a list of echoes available on the backbones.

A "preferred" list of echoes (as approved by the NAB),
available on the Z1 backbone.

Of course, the NAB has no official status in FidoNet.
As such, why should any other zone bother to even consider
any of the echoes "approved" by the NAB as being suitable
for distribution?

RW>If you want your echo carried, you don't need an echolisting
RW>to do so.

Absolutely right.  All that is needed is for *one* sysop,
in any zone, to carry that echo.  After all, distribution
always begins with one, then two, then three...

RW>All you need do is ask, show that you're the moderator
RW>and it will be carried.

Then why have an echolist at all?
Why the necessity to make any echolist "official" or "semi-official"?
Clearly that makes no sense.
Unless, of course, you are hell-bent on KONTROL...

 LL>> That clearly makes no sense.

RW>Neither do you, most of the time.

Not to those who are insane.

 LL>> Unless, of course, there is a conspiracy to have LL>that echo removed or
 RW> taken away from the moderator LL>of record.

RW>LOL! IF the echolist keeper is an honest person,
RW>that shouldn't be a problem. Notice I said IF.

Whether or not an echolist keeper is honest is beside the point.
Why have an echolist at all?  Where is the necessity?

RW>The echolist is proof of who the moderator is

A moderator can be a handle/alias.  That is legit in FidoNet.
As such, no echolisting can be proof of who the moderator is.

RW>for use by the backbones to distribute or continue to distribute
RW>an echo.

It is up to individual sysops to choose which echoes they wish
to carry on their systems, not the NAB.

RW>Failure to echolist your echo could leave it open for anyone
RW>to list and they'd become the recognized moderator.

Failure to echolist an echo does not give the NAB (or anybody else)
to hijack that echo.  After all, no echolist has any official status
in FidoNet.

RW>They used to have the same set up in Z2,

As well as in Z3.

RW>but for some strange reason, dropped their own echolist and most
RW>began to use the Z1 echolist.

The echolist keepers of Z2 and Z3 got busy with other things
aside from FidoNet.  Not that they "began to use the Z1 echolist".

RW>I suspect that moderators get their echoes distributed over
RW>there by asking permission from the Z2C first.

A moderator does not need permission from anybody to name
himself/herself moderator of an echo.  In order to get an echo
distributed, all a moderator need do is get *one* sysop, in any
zone, to add it to his/her system.  And then it snowballs
from there.

RW>However, watch out for the Z1 echolist keeper, because he's an
RW>expired echolisting grabber and won't give anyone else the chance
RW>to get it before he does. Been there and have seen him do that..

Congratulations.  You just made my point, even if you did get
your facts wrong.

 RW> ... Only 5% of all humans have the privilege to live in America.

Only .06% of all humans have the privilege to live in Louisiana.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)