informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido0621.nws

1178 lines
58 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
Volume 6, Number 21 22 May 1989
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
FidoNet Hits a New Low ................................... 1
GOOD DEALS FOR SYSOPS: Minitel offers free software! ..... 4
Reflections on Policy 4 .................................. 6
Making a Point ........................................... 11
What IFNA Means to Me! ................................... 13
Sysops take on a worthy cause: Youth At Risk Program ..... 15
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 19
The Veterinarian's Corner: Cosmetics Industry Testing .... 19
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 21
Latest Software Versions ................................. 21
And more!
FidoNews 6-21 Page 1 22 May 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
FidoNet Hits a New Low
by Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583, 7:520/583, 9:807/1
Well, it just goes to show you what can happen when you don't
take the time to read FidoNews. Miss a couple of issues, and
BLAMMO! It's like missing an episode of "Dallas". In other
words, you miss "who shot whom". In this case, however, its the
basic purpose of FidoNews that gets shot.
Recently, a number of *C's have apparently expressed displeasure
to Vince about several columns that have appeared in FidoNews
that THEY seem to think are not "FidoNet related". They would
have such columns (as defined by them) removed from publication
so they don't have to foot the bill for distributing it.
I'm not going to spout any First Amendment stuff here, after all,
this is FidoNet, not the government. Nobody ever mistook FidoNet
for a democracy, after all.
But it has always been the basic right of nodes in FidoNet that
they could submit virtually ANYTHING and have it printed in
FidoNews, and get their message out. Now, some bright person
recently asked if the readers thought they should allow KKK
announcements in FidoNews. Well, I'll tell you... I don't think
so, but then again, who am I to say? I'm not God. I'm not the
government, and I'm not the Editor (of FidoNews, anyway), and
until *I* sit in THAT particular hot seat, I can't give you a
definitive answer. I can tell you this, however: THE ANIMED
SERIES IS NOT A KKK COLUMN AND ANY COMPARISON OF THE TWO IS
RIDICULOUS.
I have found that column to be both interesting and informative,
particularly since when I first started reading it, I figured
that I'd get about three sentences into it and hit PgDn. The
first column, however, was about how you can kill a dog by
feeding it a comparitively small amount of chocolate. This, I
never knew, and it being printed on Easter week impressed me even
more with its timeliness. Since then, the column, most
intelligently written, has further impressed me with articles on
the abuses of animals in laboratories, the dangers of summertime
anti-freeze to dogs and cats, and yes, even how to keep your dog
and cat from getting fleas. Another contributor to this
'magazine' sneered at the column, stating that if he wanted to
learn about fleas, he'd pick up the conference. Well, *I* found
it interesting, and enjoyed reading it. I guess that means I'm
not as important as an *C? I guess it means that you aren't,
either, since he feels he shouldn't have to pay for sending the
file to you.
As I said before, for something I didn't think I'd be interested
in, I've been rather fascinated by the column.
FidoNews 6-21 Page 2 22 May 1989
But let's look at it another way. The *C's who've expressed
displeasure at the column jump up and down about it not being
'FidoNet related'. My response is, "So what?". Did THEY found
FidoNews? Are THEY the editors, or is Vince? They seem to feel
they have the right to limit the topics printed about because
they foot the bill for the distribution of FidoNews. My response
is, "You wanted to be an *C, right? Distributing FidoNews is
part of the job. You don't like it? Don't be an *C."
I fail to see why these people, who've contributed very little in
terms of the content of the magazine, feel they have the right to
determine its content. Don't get me wrong, we owe EACH and every
*C thanks for its distribution, but that distribution STILL comes
with the job. I don't like the fact that I have to be on call
for the Data Center I work at 24 hours a day, but it comes with
the job, and I can't change it just because its inconvenient for
me. For the *C's to attempt to change the policy of FidoNews
just because THEY aren't interested in reading about Animal
Medicine is wrong, immoral, and a slap at each and every node in
FidoNet.
The funny thing is that the ANIMED column has averaged less than
a page, sometimes a page and a half. The interesting point that
everyone seems to have glossed over is that, in the interests of
shortening FidoNews by attempting to change its editorial policy,
these *C's have generated more lines of commentary on their
actions than ALL THE ANIMED COLUMNS PUT TOGETHER.
Seems kinda self-defeating to me!
One more point. FidoNews has been relatively self-running for
years. The type of editorial policy the *C's wish would defeat
this, by effectively making Vince approve each and every article,
column, and ad that goes into it. It seems to me that if the
*C's want to enfo*Ce such a policy on Vince that THEY be the ones
to edit the magazine. Then we shall see who's willing to 'play
God' and say which article is "FidoNet related", and which isn't.
I guess the thing that I'm most disappointed about is, with all
the problems FidoNet faces today, you'd think the *C's had more
to worry about than a column in FidoNews. I guess that's just
the way FidoNet's been run for the past couple of years. In the
service, we called it "chickenm$wx%". That means that the people
in authority worry about the little problems and let the big,
important ones slide.
The motto of the Alliance newsletter, AlterNews, is "All the news
that fits, we print!" That's the way its been for FidoNews for
years, and it should not be changed for something so trivially
small. Would you have people saying that AlterNet is more open
than FidoNet?
Finally, let me just remind those who would change it that
FidoNews is STILL an IFNA publication. And the last thing I
heard, the IFNA BOD determines FidoNews policy, not the *C's. I
for one, don't want to see that, or the FidoNews policy changed.
FidoNews 6-21 Page 3 22 May 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 4 22 May 1989
WHAT IS MINITEL?
In France, over 4 million people use Minitel terminals to
search through the National Electronic Telephone Directory and
access a wide range of information services.
These services range from financial and business
transactions to communications services such as electronic
chatlines.
The success of these services with consumers in France
remains unparalleled in the world up to now.
HOW DOES MINITEL WORK IN FRANCE?
French consumers have easy access to all these services with
their dedicated terminals and their connect charges are placed
directly on their phone bill. They do not need different
accounts with each information provider like subscribers to
American information networks must have.
WHAT DOES MINITELNET HAVE TO OFFER ME?
Access to these same French services is available to users
outside France thanks to Minitelnet which now provides the
gateway to more than 10,000 French information services.
* During 1989 and 1990, Minitelnet will also give you
access to other European countries, including Belgium,
Italy, Spain, Germany and Finland.
* By the Summer of 1989 you will be able to dial up
Minitel from nodes around the world.
Minitelnet connects you to French information services from
your home or your office through a simple dial-up procedure.
WHAT EQUIPMENT DO I NEED TO HAVE TO ACCESS MINITEL?
* An IBM compatible, Macintosh, Apple II
or Commodore 64/128 computer
* A modem
* Minitel Software for your computer.
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF USING MINITELNET?
Minitelnet offers an array of user friendly services from
banking to home-shopping, from instant ticket reservations to
instant travel arrangements.
Here are just a few of the many advantages of Minitelnet:
* access electronic services in France for
the price of a local phone call
* non-stop service; available all day, any day
FidoNews 6-21 Page 5 22 May 1989
* simple to use
* inexpensive - you pay as you use the service -
starting as low as 17 cents a minute
* access to 1000's of French services not available
through other gateways
* you don't need to upgrade your computer!
HOW DO I GET STARTED?
You need a copy of the Minitel software and a
directory to the services online. THESE ARE AVAILABLE FREE!
HOW DO I GET MY FREE COPY OF THE MINITEL SOFTWARE
AND DIRECTORY?
Here's what to do:
* Dial 800 999 6163
from Canada or the continental U.S. with
your modem set at 1200 baud, 8/N/1
* At the login prompt type: MINITEL107
* Supply all information requested of you so that
Minitelnet can send you the software and directory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 6 22 May 1989
Jesse David Hollington
1:225/1
What's wrong with Policy 4?
---------------------------
After perusing Policy 4, and discussing it with several people,
I have become convinced that it is not necessarily the great
long overdue revision of policy that it seems to be.
To get something straight, actually, at first I was kind of
undecided as to what to vote on this document. However, now
that I've really sat down and *looked* at it and thought about
it, some very serious problems with it suddenly occur to me.
Let me paint a little picture...
We have, at the top of the whole mess, The International
Coordinator. Who decides who the International Coordinator
should be? Not the majority of FidoNet, which is the way
things really should be, but a very small group of people.
The Zone Coordinators.
However, at the Zone Coordinator level, the problems begin to
occur. Who decides who the Zone Coordinator should be? Again,
not the Sysops, not the vast majority of Coordinator positions,
but the Region Coordinators. Again, a very small group of
people.
But now, here's the catch, who decides who the Region
Coordinators should be? None other than the Zone Coordinator.
Where do the Network Coordinators come from? Simple, they're
appointed by the Regional Coordinators.
Do the Sysops in FidoNet actually have any say in what is going
on? Not really.
Now, very simply, what's wrong with this picture?
What this creates is a system by which only the senior officers
are voted in. Who votes in the senior officers, but the people
they have appointed, either directly or indirectly. What this
does very simply is to ensure that all the top brass in FidoNet
have their positions virtually as long as they want them for.
This is not designed to put down anybody, or point the finger
at anyone. There are, however, some interesting things about
human nature that don't make this a good system. For one thing,
a Zone Coordinator, whether consciously or not, is going to
appoint Region Coordinators under him that will support his
position. This is simply human nature. I'm not saying that I
wouldn't do the exact same thing if I were in such a position.
Nobody's perfect.
FidoNews 6-21 Page 7 22 May 1989
So who gets the best side of this deal?
Certainly not the Sysops, they have virtually no say in what
goes on. Even the Network Coordinators have very little say in
what happens in FidoNet. The power of a Network Coordinator is
limited to Policy revisions, and ZC impeachments. Even these
powers were intially a farce because of the idea of the dual
majority. That at least was progress. The dual-majority
getting scrapped was a step in the right direction.
How about the International Coordinator? Certainly the IC is
in a nice position, however, his say in what happens has been
significantly reduced. I'm not necessarily saying that it
shouldn't be reduced. However, the IC is voted in by the ZCs,
and therefore, indirectly, by the RCs. It is all well and good
that the International Coordinator *should* be elected (how else
would we decide?), but I think that there is very little sense
in having only the upper echelons vote.
Now, what about the Zone Coordinators? Certainly they have a
good side of the deal. But the decisions of a ZC can still be
reversed by a majority of the RCs voting against it. The ZC is
elected by the RCs as well. The Zone Coordinator can, however,
place the right people as Regional Coordinators under him. Yet
wouldn't a decision to have an RC replaced still be subject to
reversal by the other RCs? If this was the case, then all the
RCs would have to do would be to stick together, and they would
essentially control FidoNet.
The bottom line is that the Regional Coordinators are probably
getting by far the best end of the deal. The can control the
Zone Coordinator, and they don't have to answer to the Network
Coordinators under them. Has it yet occurred to anybody out
there exactly why the Regional Coordinators aren't votable
positions? The whole idea of voting for the position above
stops at the RC level. The whole idea of decision reversal
stops at the RC level. The Network Coordinators end up having
very little say in the matter.
Now, let us consider exactly who it is that makes FidoNet work.
The answer is simple. At the very bottom are the Sysops. The
nodes. Without Sysops at the bottom of the whole chain, all the
admin positions in the world would be pointless. The Sysops who
are a part of FidoNet, and who are the vast majority of FidoNet,
however, have very little say in what goes on. Does this imply
that it is believed that an average Sysop is not intelligent or
responsible enough to make decisions on how FidoNet should be
run?
However, the next level up on the ladder are the Network
Coordinators. It's the NCs who really make FidoNet work. This
is in a different way. The NCs coordinate mail movement in and
out of their areas of responsibility. They maintain the
nodelist fragments, they distribute nodediffs and FidoNews.
Most importantly, however, they encourage the formation of new
FidoNews 6-21 Page 8 22 May 1989
FidoNet nodes in their areas. I would venture to say that a
very sizeable portion of the Sysops who have joined FidoNet
have done so because there was somewhere nearby where they could
get FidoNet software, documents, nodelists, help, and a node
number. The Regional Coordinators certainly could not do this.
Not that I'm knocking the Regional Coordinators, it's just that
a Region is by far too large to effectively manage without
smaller subdivisions. Someone who lives in an area, say, 500
miles away from a Regional Coordinator, would have loads of fun
trying to get a network number, nodediffs, FidoNews, help,
advice and software, if it weren't for the Network Coordinators
who do all this. You could almost say that the NCs are the
unsung heroes of FidoNet.
Now, let's get something straight. I'm a Network Coordinator.
When I got this position, I didn't know what I was getting
myself into. I've put a lot of work into FidoNet, and spent a
great deal of time encouraging local sysops to connect as
FidoNet nodes. I have spent many long hours connecting Sysops
to mailers, debugging systems, solving problems, etc. I have
spent almost as long trying to keep my computer from going crazy
on me. At least twice a week my hard disk threatens to fill up.
I'm not knocking the Regional Coordinators, Zone Coordinators,
or other administrative positions at all. They certainly do a
lot of work, and we'd be equally lost without most of them.
I'm simply trying to point out that we have other administrative
positions in FidoNet as well. The whole administrative realm of
FidoNet does not, contrary to popular belief, end with the RCs.
Yet Policy 4 tends to imply that it does.
This document is not meant as a put-down. I'm not trying to
convince anybody of anything. I'm simply attempting to provoke
some thought out there. I myself was of the attitude, "Well,
a Policy revision is long overdue. Let's all vote yes, approve
it, and get it out of our hair." When I really started to think
about it, however, I started to seriously ask myself if I really
agreed with what was in it, and if I really agreed that that was
the way FidoNet should be run. I decided to write this article
when I came up with the answer, and saw what problems there
really are in Policy 4.
Consider how little has *really* changed in Policy 4. There
are definitely some very good clarifications, and minor
technical modifications. However, the only thing that strikes
me as a major change is the political structure. Details of
which I have gone into already.
Now, who wrote Policy 4? The Administration. Particularly,
mostly the Regional Coordinators. I am not saying that if I
were in such a position that I'd do anything different than
what they did, and that was to extend their power. Again,
human nature. Now, naturally, the policy documents have to be
written by somebody. Administration is a logical choice. It
would, however, be much more logical to appoint a committee out
of various positions, from the Sysop level up. Maybe a few
FidoNews 6-21 Page 9 22 May 1989
Sysops, a few NCs, a few RCs, the ZCs, and the IC. That would
definitely be the most democratic way to get things accomplished
In closing, my advice for how any form of voting structure
should work is that it should apply to virtually everybody, or
virtually nobody. There are always exceptions at the top and
bottom in either of these cases. Basically, if the upward
structure is to be used, it should travel right down to the
Sysop level. In other words, the Sysops vote for their NC (or
at least have some portion of relevant say in who he is), the
NCs vote for their RC, the RCs for their ZC, and so on. The
more logical method, however, would be to simply have everybody
in FidoNet vote for the IC, or everybody in a zone vote for
their ZC, and then they can take care of appointing the levels
below them, indirectly. Basically, in other words, the same
way it worked before Policy 4, except that everybody who has
a Node address should be eligible to vote.
This would be democracy. The system as it is now is *not*
democratic. It is more or less, an aristocracy bordering on a
dictatorship. Admittedly, this is strong language, but it
becomes clear that the administration is power mongering with
this revision of Policy. Again, I'm not blaming anybody in
specific, save for that old entity known as human nature.
I must admit that if I were a part of the high-level admin in
FidoNet, I might agree with Policy 4 wholeheartedly. The fact
is that I'm not, I'm just a Network Coordinator of an obscure
little network that sees the potential problems that could
develop if the policies of FidoNet follow this pattern.
Adolf Hitler was a prime example of somebody who wrote himself
into power. He began as Chancellor of Germany, and was the
greatest thing that ever happened to Germany for a while, but he
eventually, through various forms of legislation, put himself in
such a position that he was Chancellor for life. It is not an
entirely adequate comparison, but does give us an example of
what can happen when one person or specific group of people are
put in charge of creating policies. History shows it doesn't
work. Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it,
and I think that it's possible to say that this is where we are
now heading in FidoNet.
We need democracy in this structure. Not anti-democracy posing
as democracy, which is the vein that Policy 4 is written in.
And if counting 5700 votes is a problem, I have a number of
suggestions as to how that could be handled.
I certainly hope I haven't offended anyone in the writing of
this. I have just stated a number of things that I felt needed
to be said. Policy 4 is a great document in many ways, and has
a number of promising aspects. I disagree with the political
structure it outlines, however, because it is simply not
acceptable in a democratic system.
The problem is that too many people out there don't want to
get involved in the politics in FidoNet, and I can't say that I
FidoNews 6-21 Page 10 22 May 1989
blame them. However, sitting back and pretending that
everything is okay when it isn't is not going to make the
problems go away. It's going to do nothing but compound them.
I would implore the Sysops, and especially the Network
Coordinators out there to get involved and pay attention to
what is happening around them. And please don't fall into the
trap that I nearly fell into and get the attitude of, "let's
just vote yes on it and get it over with." That is a very
dangerous attitude to have. Think about what you're voting
on. Ask yourself if you really want FidoNet to be run how
Policy 4 implies it will be run. Base your vote upon your
answer to that question.
End of Political Discourse.
Again, I honestly hope I haven't offended anyone through this.
It was not meant as a put-down of any person or category of
people. It is very simply some constructive criticism on what
I think is wrong with things as they now stand.
(And to think that I missed the final episode of "Family
Ties" to sit here and write this <grin> ).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 11 22 May 1989
Making A Point
jim nutt
'the computer handyman'
1:114/30
Setting up a point is actually a lot easier than you might
think. It requires some time, patience and a fair deal of
hard disk space, but in general, not much hair.
The first step in setting up a point is finding a fidonet
sysop who is willing to act as a 'boss' node for you. The
boss node is essentially your link to the rest of fidonet.
In a basic point, all your mail flows through the boss and
you call only the boss. It is generally a good idea to make
sure that the boss node is a local call and that they are
someone you can work with.
The next step is to collect the software you need. I
personally recommend the following for a basic point:
BinkleyTerm version 2.20
ConfMail version 3.31
oMMM version 1.40
msged version 1.99
Arca/Arce any version
I recommend using confmail version 3.31 instead of version 4
because 3.31 can also do all your message maintenance for
you, while those functions have been eliminated from version
4. The easiest way to set all this stuff up is to create a
subdirectory on your hard disk called "POINT" and dump
everything into it. You'll need to create a few
subdirectories under point as well:
\point\inbound where inbound mail goes
\point\outbound where mail is held to be sent
\point\mail where the messages are stored
And of course, if you want echomail, you need to create a
subdirectory for each echomail area you want to pick up.
Now you need to get on the phone and talk to the sysop of
your boss node. You need to find out what your 'private'
network address is and you have to decide what password you
want to use on your sessions with the boss node. The
private network address is the address your boss uses in
talking with you, it is never seen by the rest of the
network. Once you have that information you can begin
editing the configuration files for your point. There are a
total of seven of them and unfortunately, a great deal of
the information is duplicated in them. The programs use the
following configuration files:
BinkleyTerm Binkley.Cfg
ConfMail Areas.Bbs, Mail.Sys
FidoNews 6-21 Page 12 22 May 1989
msged Binkley.Cfg
oMMM oMMM.ctl, oMMM.cfg, Binkley.Prm
Of all of these, Binkley.Cfg is the most important as
Mail.Sys and Binkley.Prm are created from it (using the
btctl.exe utility) and BinkleyTerm and msged use it
directly. Fortunately, it's also the best documented. The
easiest way to set it up is to take the sample Binkley.Cfg
and change it to fit your system. The BinkleyTerm
documention covers this in fair detail. Once you have that
file set up, you run btctl to create mail.sys and
binkley.prm. You now have installed BinkleyTerm and msged.
The next thing to do is to create and oMMM.ctl file
containing a single line:
ArcCm bnet/bnode All
Where bnet/bnode is your boss nodes address. Then change
the values in the sample ommm.cfg to point to your
subdirectories and you're all set for netmail. The final
configuration file, Areas.Bbs, is a bit more complicated.
It tells confmail where each of your echomail areas are. If
you aren't doing any echomail, then Areas.Bbs can be as
simple as:
'the computer handyman' (home of msged) ! jim nutt
Of course, you'll want to change that to reflect your name
and system. If you are running echomail, you'll need a line
for each echo area in the form:
subdirectory echotag bossnet/node
Subdirectory is where the echo message will be put, echotag
is the official name of the area and bossnet/node tells
confmail that you want this echo sent to your boss node.
If you've gotten this far the rest is easy! All that is
left is to write a simple batch file to control packing and
unpacking mail, your boss probably has one he can give you
or can help you with one of your own. Other than that,
you're pretty much ready to go. I can't stress enough
though.... READ THE DOCUMENTATION for your software, it
wasn't written just to waste space on the disk! It will
help you get through the tight spots and figure out some of
the wierdness that can happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 13 22 May 1989
Tom Hendricks, Sysop of Avi-Technic BBS, 1:261/662,
(301) 252-0717
What IFNA Means to Me:
I am writing this article after reflection on the many
changes and troubles that the International FidoNet Association
has endured over the last few years.
IFNA, the organization, has survived a turbulent period, and
its continued existance is still far from a certainty. It was
formed originally to help offset some of the costs of running the
FidoNet, and of helping the people who do so. Upon its creation
it was beset with confusion and mixed ideals, effectively
hamstringing its operation at every turn. Detractors took refuge
in "Alternative" networks and took potshots whenever possible.
IFNA, in an attempt to counteract these detractors became a
responsive organization, declaring itself separate and apart from
the day-to-day FidoNet operations, and became centered on special
interests. Finally, these seem to be dissolving, leaving only
the shell remaining.
Did you know that the International FidoNet association
appoints the International Coordinator? It does. However
complaints aimed at the IFNA Board of Directors caused them to
divorce themselves somewhat from actual FidoNet Operations. Did
you know the IFNA Board of Directors appoints the chairman of the
FidoNet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC)? Did you know this
committee has several sub-committees, including high-speed
modems, software certification and others? Did you know that the
IFNA Board of Directors has listened to comments from anyone (not
just FidoNet members) about anything related to the FidoNet? Did
you know that the IFNA Board of Directors appoints the Membership
Services Committee Chairman, and that the Membership Services has
a sub-committee which selects the site of FidoCons from year to
year? (This year's winner was San Jose, California). Did you
know these conventions are partially funded in startup, or seed
money from the IFNA treasury? Did you know there was a IFNA
Publications committee which oversees the publishing of the
Weekly FidoNews?
With all this is mind, what does IFNA mean to you, the
"Average" FidoNet sysop? I'm not too sure many of us know IFNA
exists. Too often we take for granted something without
understanding the need for it, and the necessary investment of
our time and energies to keep it there for us. Honestly, the
most any of us have heard about IFNA, was what a lot of
hot-headed detractors have been saying about it. All we remember
is that this problem or that problem exists, while very few
people realize there are a lot of positives involved as well.
Did you know for instance that the International FidoNet
Association was the holder of the copyright on the term 'FidoNet'
as assigned from Tom Jennings, the creator of the net? Did you
know IFNA was a non-profit corporation? Donations of money,
equipment or time can be accepted and put to good use.
FidoNews 6-21 Page 14 22 May 1989
Did you know that IFNA is your best bet in terms of a single
body representing all of us? Even though the paid membership of
IFNA is small in comparison to the number of systems contained in
the nodelist, IFNA is the only organization which effectively is
available to be a 'WatchDog' on our hobby for us. Do you
remember the scares of Texas, where Bulletin Board Systems were
deemed businesses and had to pay business telephone rates? How
about the instance in D.C. where all the bulletin boards were
called part of pipe-bomb making network? Or else, what about the
child-pornography and pediphile networks? Although we are large
in numbers, there is no effective organization available
presently to counter this flood of misrepresentation about our
hobby. IFNA, is our only option now, and they do their best by
explaining the good things, how electronic communications helps
enrich the environment, not detract from it.
I started writing this article in response to several
comments like "IFNA may not exist much longer", or listening to
the constant chatter of something someone somewhere doesn't like
today. Tomorrow will see new people complaining about other
things, other people, other situations. Bottom line is: Who,
What, and How will they complain about IFNA when it isn't there
anymore? Will it take losing something valuable (but still in
its infancy) to realize that they need to save it, to nurture it,
and to force it to grow?
This brings me to my question, "What does IFNA mean to me?"
Well, let me tell you, or did I do just that?
-Tom Hendricks-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 15 22 May 1989
Sysops participate in the Youth At Risk Program
by The Captain of the King's Navee, 7:520/583, 1:520/583, 9:807/1
and the Newark Youth At Risk Program
One of the reasons I joined the Alliance was to work with others
in doing some good for people. Being a charitable organization,
one of the goals of the Alliance is to help others. I've watched
as our organization has grown over the past year or so, and
waited eagerly for the opportunity to take part in some of these
proposed activities. As you can imagine, much of the Alliance's
energy has been spent just getting started and growing over the
past months, but we are now organized to the point where our
members can start to do some of the good work that our Code of
Chivalry mentions.
Several members of AlterNet 520 have recently gotten involved in
a worthy program called "Youth at Risk". His Majesty the
Archduke, Karl the First, has been involved for over a year with
this program, and introduced it to our network. As you will see,
however, this program is taking place on a NATIONAL level, giving
ALL Alliance members an opportunity to participate.
The Youth At Risk Program was designed as a community
intervention into the problem of juvenile delinquency. It was
begun in Oakland, California in 1982 in response to the demands
of an anguished community frustrated by its inablility to deal
with this problem. Since that time Youth At Risk Programs have
been conducted in cities across the U.S. with over 25 cities
currently participating. Youth At Risk offers a real prospect of
making a substantial impact on the problem of juvenile
delinquency in this country. Members of Net 520 are currently
dealing with the program based in the city of Newark, N.J.
The Breakthrough Foundation of San Francisco is the source of the
Youth At Risk Program. Breakthrough provides the professional
staff necessary to stage a program in each city and, over a 2
year period, trains about 350 volunteers in the skills required
to insure its success. In addition, the Breakthrough staff
actually conducts much of the hands-on work with the youths.
Each community's Youth At Risk Program is incorporated separately
from the Break through Foundation, allowing it to receive tax
deductible contributions directly. Each Youth At Risk Program
must raise the funds to pay Breakthrough for its services.
HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS
---------------------
There are approximately 85 youths in each Youth At Risk Program.
They are selected through a process of consultation with school
officials, probation officers, social workers and other community
professionals. No youth is forced to do the program. The one
overriding requirement for participation is the willingness to
have one's life turned around, to be open to new ideas and
alternatives. Each youth is made fully aware that this program
FidoNews 6-21 Page 16 22 May 1989
is tough and demanding and will require commitment and integrity
on his or her part. Few appreciate the full meaning of those
words until they begin the program.
THE 10 DAY COURSE
-----------------
The 10 Day Course is an intensive, rigorous experience for 85
youths at risk and 20 adult professionals in the youth services
field. The adult professionals actually participate in the couse
with the youths, creating a common experience that leads to
broadened communication and understanding. The 10 Day Course
takes place in a rural setting within a few hours driving
distance of the youths' community. During the Course
participants break throught the limitations they have imposed on
themselves and the judgements and attitudes they have formed
about each other. At the end of the 10 days both the youths and
the adult professionals, who work with the youths back in the
community, are fully aware of possibilities for their lives that
they had not previously seen.
THE FOLLOW THROUGH PROGRAM
--------------------------
Back at home the environment has not improved. Therefore, Follow
Through activities are specifically designed not only to
accelerate the breakthroughs achieved during the 10 Day Couse but
to do so in ways that are relevant to the reality of day-to day
life and to the issues the young people confront.
The Breakthrough Foundation, in partnership with local social
service agencies and supported by volunteers, manages the year-
long Follow Through Program. During the Follow Through each
participant, supported by an adult volunteer "committed
partner", works on personal and community service projects.
Special attention is paid to performance in school or on the job,
to family relationships, and to relationships with the juvenile
justice authorities. The youths attend monthly day-long group
meetings, led by Breakthrough staff, and are in communication
with their committed partners at least 3 times a week.
THE RESULTS
-----------
Who are these youth at risk? 61% of the applicants for the Youth
At Risk Program in cities across the U.S. reported that they had
been caught by the police committing a crime; 89% of these said
they would probably do it again; 33 had been shot, stabbed or
beaten people; almost all reported problems in school and at
home; 60% had used drugs.
Independent studies show that the Youth At Risk Program produces
dramatic results:
1. Truancy down 75%
2. Hours per week at work up 300%
FidoNews 6-21 Page 17 22 May 1989
3. Arrests down 50%
4. Substantial improvement in grades
5. Improved relations with parents and teachers
6. As reflected in standardized "locus of control" tests an
increased willingness to accept responsibility for their
own lives and a decreased tendency to blame others for
their problems.
7. Substantially reduced drug use.
To quote Connecticut Superior Court Judge Sidney Landau, "this is
the thing that really works. The results here are so good I
can't believe it. I've been in the criminal justice system for
30 years. I deal with an 85% recidivism rate in Bridgeport.
Here, it's more like 35%. People I tell this to in my business
say 'you're lying - it can't be true'. But it is."
THE COST
--------
It costs about $400,000 to fund EACH Youth At Risk Program. This
money goes for local operations (phone, stationary, electricity,
office rental, etc.), consultation services from the Breakthrough
Foundation (training volunteers in fundraising and program
organization), 10 Day site expenses, including compensation to
Breakthrough for the staff people who conduct the 10 Day Course,
and the year-long Follow Through Program. Donated goods and
services from local suppliers can substantially reduce this cost.
CONCLUSION
----------
The possibilities for Youth At Risk are exciting. Youth At Risk
Programs, done on an on-going basis, can have a considerable
impact on the quality of life, both for the participants and for
the community at large. These take support in monetary
donations, and in vounteer time to get these programs rolling.
I urge sysops everywhere to seek out the closest Youth At Risk
Program and contribute and volunteer, or if there isn't a program
locally, start one yourself!
Programs are underway in the following US cities: Albuquerque,
Atlanta, Boston, Bridgeport, Chicago, Chapel Hill, Dallas,
Denver, Detroit, Hartford, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami,
Minneapolis, Monterey, New Haven, New York, Newark, Philadelphia,
Phoenix, Portland, Rochester, San Jose, Seattle, San Antonio, San
Diego, Springfield (Mass), and Washington DC. For information, on
how to contact YAR in these cities, or start a program in your
own city, contact The Breakthrough Foundation at 1-800-669-0171.
Your local Youth At Risk organization will be happy to help you
to sponsor a youth in the program. On the average right now, it
takes about $3,000 per youth to put him (or her) through the
program. Multiply that by 85 youths, and you can see the type of
dollars this type of program needs to run. But I think you'll
agree that the results speak for themselves. It's worth it!
FidoNews 6-21 Page 18 22 May 1989
If you'd like to send a contribution, seek out your local YAR
program, or contributions can be sent to:
Newark Youth At Risk, Inc.
PO Box 32333
Newark, N.J. 07102
or call (201)687-0352
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 19 22 May 1989
=================================================================
COLUMNS
=================================================================
The Veterinarian's Corner
Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference
by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005
I think that it is time that pressure be brought to develop
alternative testing means for the cosmetic industry to screen
potential new products prior to marketing. As time as gone on,
medical science has been able to develop sensitive and relatively
sophisticated means for the detection of mutagenic potential of
compound in specialized bacterial cultures, rather than the
massive number of laboratory anmials once used for screening many
food and pharmaceutical products for cancer causing potential
(Ames Test). While this does not ELIMINATE the use of animals, it
GREATLY reduces the number of animals utilized for the lower
levels of the screening process.
I believe that the use of some animals in medical research is a
pragmatic necessity. I believe that we have the moral and ethical
responsibility to use the fewest number of animals possible, in
the most humane manner possible. We must continually search for
alternative technologies and computer simlutations and
extrapolations where appropriate.
The realistic approach for today is somewhere in the middle of
the discussion. Those crying for the immediate end to all use of
animal models in research, ignore the fact that as of now in many
cases there is no alternative means yet devised to obtain the
needed information that ultimately is of a higher benefit to man.
(Not sure that 'cosmetics' quite fits this bill....) Yet I have
seen the definate move towards development of new technology,
largely because of the mobilization of public opinion, first
raised by those on these extreme views. The end result IS better.
On the other hand, callous use of "such animals as rats, mice,
and rabbits" [quote from cosmetic industry spokesperson] "is far
less important than consumer safety issues," to me is a calloused
view on the other side which demeans respect for 'non-human'
animal life. I would rather hear the industry come to open
examination of alternative means of irritant screening, rather
than defensive posturing.
I do not know of the specific types and choices we currently have
in utilizing these alternative modalities, but I know that we are
resourceful enough people that we can at least limit the extent
of animal use, rather than continue to rely upon a crude biologic
screen that has changed little over the last 45 years.
Don Thomson, DVM
1:102/1005
9:871/16
FidoNews 6-21 Page 20 22 May 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 21 22 May 1989
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12m* Opus 1.03b TBBS 2.1
QuickBBS 2.03 TPBoard 5.0 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Lynx 1.30 Phoenix 1.3 RBBS 17.1D
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
Dutchie 2.90C EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.01
SEAdog 4.50 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
BinkleyTerm 2.20 Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
D'Bridge 1.18 XlatList 2.90 TPB Editor 1.21
FrontDoor 2.0 XlaxNode 2.32 TCOMMail 2.2
PRENM 1.40 XlaxDiff 2.32 TMail 8901
ParseList 1.30 UFGATE 1.03
GROUP 2.07
EMM 1.40
MSGED 1.99
XRS 2.0
* Recently changed
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 22 22 May 1989
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
5 Jun 1989
David Dodell's 32nd Birthday
2 Aug 1989
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 23 22 May 1989
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/1
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/1 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-21 Page 24 22 May 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
_`@/_ \ _
| | \ \\
| (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink