Original Message Date: 28 Oct 91 13:39:20 
From: Maynard Riley on 1:115/678
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
Subj: suspect situation

Tom,

My name is Maynard Riley; I'm officiating an election for NC in Chicago 
Net 115. 

Joel Veeneman and Lew Prather are the run-off candidates in the second 
round of voting.

Rick Thelen is a local SWASHy (SWASHnet NC around here I understand) who 
has sent the following message via netmail to other SWASHnet members who 
are also in FidoNet.

Rick's message espouses that you support Joel's position against 
discrimination against sysops with affiliations in other networks. (Joel 
is local RC in some other network, not SWASH). However, Rick's message is 
worded to appear that you support his views against "banishment" as listed.
 
Rick is incorrect when he says that there is current discussion on the 
"banishment" issues. The only such discussion in progress has been one 
where folks are discussing measures to keep underage kids from viewing 
inappropriate GIFs.
 

I would appreciate your response to this situation.

     ~-Maynard Riley

Rick's message follows::::::

 * Originally by Rich Thelen, 1:115/904
 * Originally dated 28 Oct 1991, 10:52

The election for NET115 NC was held and a runoff will be required.

          Joel Veeneman   -  16 votes
          Lew Prather     -  14 votes
          Andy Lester     -  10 votes

We can expect most of the Lester votes to go to Prather, so your vote is 
needed more than ever.  There will be sweeping changes to the politics of 
the net if Lew is elected.  For instance, the following things are 
actively being discussed:

1.  Banish all nodes who carry adult GIFs or adult material
2.  Banish all nodes who carry pirate files
3.  Banish any nodes who supports illegal behaviour of any kind
4.  Banish nodes who carry software un-protects
5.  Make it difficult or near impossible for new nodes who are part
     of other nets from joining Fido.

Remember, they have already banished one node because he was in another 
net.  It could have happened to anyone, even you.

Joel Venneman is opposed to this witch hunting fever and will not tolerate 
it to exist while he is NC.  The founder of Fido [Tom Jennings] and George 
Peace both support Joel's policies.  He will need your vote to be able to 
end the witch hunting.

Vote for Joel Veeneman.  I have included a ballot if you did not get one. 
Voting closes Nov. 2 1991.  Please vote.

========================================================================

Original Message Date: 29 Oct 91  13:38:56
From: tom jennings on 1:1/1
To: maynard riley on 1:115/678
Subj: chicagoland
^AINTL 1:115/678 1:1/1

Thanks for writing me!!! Oh, how I hate this sort of thing... not just 
the using my name bit, but the whole concept of "banishment". Violent 
thoughts come to mind...

Did you cc: Georce Peace? He gets tons of stuff, so you should get the 
gist of the problem into (literally) one sentence ... "You are quoted 
as supporting an NC-candidates position; did you do this? Text 
follows" etc ...

I do thank you 1,000,000 X for sending me the message... if I sound 
angry I am, but not at you!!!!!! You can remain anonymous if you so 
desire, since I realize you have to live with idiots like this, but 
making it all public usually works better... your call.

The message I'm delivering follows separately. 

---
 
Could you please confirm receipt of this message ASAP? What are its 
chances for getting to thje other nodes in your net if I send one for 
every node to 115/0? (ie will they host route properly). Can you get 
copies out to them?


Original Message Date: 29 Oct 91  13:41:04
From: tom jennings on 1:125/111
To: Rich Thelen on 1:115/904
Subj: chicagoland "voting"
^AINTL 1:115/904 1:125/111
01/27  > tolerate it to exist while he is NC.  The founder of Fido [Tom
02/27  > Jennings] and George Peace both support Joel's policies.  He 
03/27  
04/27  I have made no statements regarding your local net politics. The
05/27  above is a fabrication. The ends do *not* justify the means. 
06/27  
07/27  Please forward a complete copy of this explanatory message (27
08/27  lines) to all recipients of the one in which I am referred to.
09/27  
10/27  PS: 
11/27  
12/27  Since I was dragged into this against my will, you now get to 
13/27  put up with my opinions:
14/27  
15/27  > 1.  Banish all nodes who ...
16/27  
17/27  If this is for real, (and how can I tell, with one lie in that
18/27  message there may have been others) anyone seriously considering
19/27  "banishing" others simply because they might do something THEY
20/27  PERSONALLY DON'T APPROVE is amongst the most disgusting, 
21/27  neo-fascist, unAmerican CRAP I've seen in FidoNet yet. So much
22/27  for communications. It shows a complete lack of the most basic
23/27  kind of civilization -- respect for others, EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T
24/27  AGREE WITH THEM. 
25/27  
26/27  I will shine the light of the public eye on any such large-scale
27/27  thug behavior I see in FidoNet. 

Original Message Date: 02 Nov 91 05:40:50 
From: Maynard Riley on 1:115/678
To: tom jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Re: no file(s) attached! 

 TJ> Did you cc: Georce Peace?
 
Copy to George was identical to that sent to you. No reply yet.
 

 TJ> Could you please confirm receipt of this message ASAP? 
 
This (direct) message, and the routed one, came in side-by-side. Thank you 
for your time and consideration.
 
 TJ> What are its chances for getting to thje other nodes 
 TJ> in your net if I send one for every node to 115/0? (ie 
 TJ> will they host route properly). Can you get copies out 
 TJ> to them?

I can arrange to copy your message here to anyone you wish. Hub-routing 
here is working. Not everyone will need one, because the message which 
used your name was travelling in netmail. I do have the cc: list to that 
message.
 
     ~-Maynard
 

--- Sirius 1.0ya
 * Origin: chicagOO's nOOrthern cOOst (FidoNet 1:115/678)

Original Message Date: 02 Nov 91 05:51:54 
From: Maynard Riley on 1:115/678
To: tom jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Re: no file(s) attached 
 
 > 17/27  If this is for real, (and how can I tell, with one lie in that 
 > 18/27  message there may have been others) anyone seriously considering
 > 19/27  "banishing" others simply because they might do something THEY
 > 20/27  PERSONALLY DON'T APPROVE is amongst the most disgusting,
 > 21/27  neo-fascist, unAmerican CRAP I've seen in FidoNet yet. So much
 > 22/27  for communications. It shows a complete lack of the most basic
 > 23/27  kind of civilization -- respect for others, EVEN WHEN YOU DON'T
 > 24/27  AGREE WITH THEM.
 
No disagreement on this, Tom. The author of the message I sent you was not 
advocating banishment; rather he rails against it, and makes long litanies 
about first amendment freedoms. The problem is that he's using it all to 
support his right to engage in illegal activities.
 
It boils down to one simple question:
 
Can FidoNet tolerate "pirate" systems which are known to engage in the 
transfer of files in violation of license agreements, and other illegal 
activities ?
 
I get so tired of hearing the excuse that "I didn't pay the license fee, 
so I'm not violating anything by letting you pick up a copy of this."
 
     ~-Maynard
 

--- Sirius 1.0ya
 * Origin: chicagOO's nOOrthern cOOst (FidoNet 1:115/678)

Original Message Date: 02 Nov 91 06:37:44
From: Maynard Riley on 1:115/678
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: question of ethics
 * Forwarded by: Maynard Riley on 02 Nov 91 at 06:44
 * Original to:  George Peace of 1:270/101


George,

Referring to a message which I sent to you (at 1/0) on 10/28 wherein I 
copied a message being netmailed around behind an election I'm overseeing 
for NC in Net 115,

wherein the author used your name and a first amendment stance to state 
opposition to what he called "banishment" of systems,

as a protection of his "right" to:

     "carry pirate files" and
     "support illegal behavior of any kind"

I'd appreciate your response to this situation.

     ~-Maynard Riley



--- Sirius 1.0ya
 * Origin: chicagOO's nOOrthern cOOst (FidoNet 1:115/678)

Original Message Date: 02 Nov 91  14:40:38
From: Joel Veeneman on 1:115/639
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Othernet affiliation/ Net 115 issue
^AMSGID: 1:115/639@fidonet 990e5413
Tom -

 I am the local net 115 candidate for whom Rich Thelen (1:115/904) wrote 
the letter you quoted (I received your response today). Although I had 
nothing
to do with the creation of the letter, and it's obvious that some parts of
Rich's letter are complete misrepresentations, I thought you might want to
know the circumstances which prompted the creation of the letter.

Earlier this year, a sysop named Adam Lyons (a teenager in suburban 
Chicago) was admitted to Fidonet, after successful completion of the very 
few requirements we have here - minimum technical compliance and a valid 
phone number are about all that's needed here. Very soon after his 
entrance, a policy complaint was filed against Adam by aother sysop, Steve 
Levinthal, complaining that Adam was using the address of an othernet 
(known as Swashnet) to connect with Steve while transferring Fidonet 
echomail. Steve's complaint stated that the fact that Adam belonged to an 
organization rumored to have dealings in software piracy and other illegal 
acts constituted excessively annoying behavior, especially when evidence 
of such affiliation was used in Fidonet transfers. N115C Jerry Callahan 
agreed with Steve, and removed Adam from the nodelist. A number of 115 
sysops, including Rich and myself, were rather distraught at that 
decision, and counseled Adam to appeal the decision to R11C, Mark Lynch. 
Mark overturned the decision, and directed Jerry to reinstate Adam under a 
different HUB, so that Steve would not be in direct contact with Adam. 
[For informational purposes, I am now Adam's HUB].

As a result of the controversy surrounding this issue, the net has 
essentially split onto two factions: one supporting the NC's decision, the 
other supporting the RC's. As Jerry is now retiring from the NC post, the 
two remaining candidates (we are now in an election runoff) represent each 
side of this issue.

I was distraught when I was forwarded a copy of the letter Rich wrote, as 
I knew that Rich had probably not contacted you or George Peace, and so 
therefore was in error in using your names in the letter.  I feel some 
responsibility for the appearance of the letter, as it was designed to aid 
my chances of winning the election, so I offer you my humblest personal 
apologies for the use of your name. I feel it is important, however, that 
you know the facts behind this issue, and, if you loke, I will be more 
than happy to keep you up-to-date on this issue as it unfolds.

Thanks much for your attention,

Joel Veeneman
1:115/639@fidonet

Original Message Date: 02 Nov 91  15:02:55
From: Rich Thelen on 1:115/904
To: tom jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: NET115
^AMSGID: 1:115/904 990ee7c7
 > 01/27  > tolerate it to exist while he is NC.  The founder of
 > Fido [Tom
 > 02/27  > Jennings] and George Peace both support Joel's
 > policies.  He
 > 03/27
 > 04/27  I have made no statements regarding your local net
 > politics. The
 > 05/27  above is a fabrication. The ends do *not* justify the
 > means.

You have my apology for insinuating that you had chosen sides.  The
text is a little ambiguous, but my intention was to state that your 
position (well known from FidoNews) was similar to Joel's.

 > 06/27
 > 07/27  Please forward a complete copy of this explanatory
 > message (27
 > 08/27  lines) to all recipients of the one in which I am
 > referred to.

I have carried this out except for those who received unauthorized copies 
of my original private netmail transmission (whose identities I am not 
aware of).  The original addresses have received a copy.

 > 09/27
 > 10/27  PS:
 > 11/27
 > 12/27  Since I was dragged into this against my will, you now
 > get to
 > 13/27  put up with my opinions:
 > 14/27
 > 15/27  > 1.  Banish all nodes who ...
 > 16/27
 > 17/27  If this is for real, (and how can I tell, with one lie in
 > that
 > 18/27  message there may have been others) anyone seriously
 > considering
 > 19/27  "banishing" others simply because they might do something
 > THEY
 > 20/27  PERSONALLY DON'T APPROVE is amongst the most disgusting,
 > 21/27  neo-fascist, unAmerican CRAP I've seen in FidoNet yet. So
 > much
 > 22/27  for communications. It shows a complete lack of the most
 > basic
 > 23/27  kind of civilization -- respect for others, EVEN WHEN YOU
 > DON'T
 > 24/27  AGREE WITH THEM.
 > 25/27
 > 26/27  I will shine the light of the public eye on any such
 > large-scale
 > 27/27  thug behavior I see in FidoNet.

I thank you for agreeing with this principle so completely.  I am sorry 
that you had to be dragged into this fight.  It certainly was not my 
intention.  My reference to your name and views was to your own public 
statements.  I am sorry that the ambiguity misled anyone.

Rich Thelen
115/904

Original Message Date: 03 Nov 91  08:11:35
From: Rick Moore on 1:115/333
To: tom jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Net 115 bullshit
^AMSGID: 1:115/333 2913fa5a
cc: Maynard Riley

Hi, Tom.  Since I happen to be a member of net 115,  I thought I could add 
a little information to what you have heard so far.

Neither Lew Prather (the newly elected NC) nor Jerry Callahan (the current 
NC) has EVER called for the bannishment of ANYONE,  regardless of 
provocation.  Period.  Lew campaigned on a minimalist,  
non-interventionist platform - it is indeed comical that the letter you 
were shown supported a candidate that wants to substantially increase the 
activities of the NC (read bureaucracy,  at least to me) including 
dropping boards from the nodelist that do not live up to his standards (to 
paraphrase of his words).

Since you are pretty familar with my views on the desirability of anarchy 
in FidoNet,  you can be sure you will hear from me if any NC in net 115 
ever decides to do anything like Richard Thelan assuses Lew Prather of 
wanting to do.  Fortunately for us,  now that Lew has been elected,  you 
can rest assured that nothing whatever of this sort will occur as long as 
Lew is NC.



Rick
 

