Zorch Droppings...

                     Ruling on PC filed by Zorch Frezberg - Part 1



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 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;

zf>     specifically, the release of netmail for the purpose of

zf>     annoying others, and in this case, involving others not in

zf>     the chain of appeal, as defined in Section 9.1, last para

zf>     of Policy 4.07; further, that such release was done in order

zf>     to make improper accusations and undue disruption of FidoNet

zf>     constitutes 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 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

zf>   = As indicated in the logs submitted by the various NCs of Region

zf>     10, it is clear that the system Ruth Argust used to mail out from

zf>     was representing itself as 1:2004/0.

zf>

zf>     Ruth has offered several clarifications in an effort to explain

zf>     this, but has not explained the one most significant problem; why

zf>     she felt it necessary to register the software *as* 1:2004/0,

zf>     since she and Gerry claim that their net has elections (See

zf>     CHARGE2.001).

zf>

zf>     The fact that the clarifications are specious is obvious...the

zf>     node in question will consistently display itself as 1:2004/0

zf>     regardless of who the NC is, and will interfere in mail routing

zf>     and distribution upon their removal/departure from the posts that

zf>     they hold.

zf>

zf>     This failure, along with the fact that numerous mailer programs

zf>     cannot distinguish between a multi-line and a single-line node,

zf>     as seen in the attached logs, clearly shows the connecting mailer

zf>     as being 1:2004/0.  There is no specific mailer in place which

zf>     lists Gerry Calhoun as NC2004, operating 1:2004/0 as the nodelist

zf>     defines.

zf>

zf>     This is indicated in the various logs included in the evidence

zf>     file (See CHARGE2.004, CHARGE2.005, CHARGE2.006 and CHARGE2.007).

zf>

zf>     This would be no significant matter, and likely to be dismissed,

zf>     per Ruth's numerous claims that "this is just the way that the

zf>     software is set up", save for _one_ salient point:

zf>

zf>     In the recent Z1 EchoMail Coordinator election, Ruth Argust had

zf>     submitted her vote, presenting herself as "1:2004/0", and Gerry

zf>     Calhoun had submitted his vote, presenting himself as "1:2004/205"

zf>     (See CHARGE2.002 and CHARGE2.003; note that CHARGE2.003 is the

zf>     roster of voting nodes from the Election Coordinator).

zf>

zf>     Likewise, as can be noted in the log files, it does not matter to

zf>     which phone number/node that one is connected to...*all* nodes on

zf>     the connection present themselves as "1:2004/0" and with Ruth

zf>     Argust as the sysop of the node reserved for the N2004C, without

zf>     regard for the reality of the situation.  This can be seen in the

zf>     log files, as the "home node", "Node #2" and "Node #3" all present

zf>     as "1:2004/0" on connection, and all as "Ruth Argust".

zf>

zf>     Under Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4, the NC is normally responsible

zf>     for the exactness of the network nodelist segment, and also may

zf>     not delegate the responsibility to mediate disputes.  Given the

zf>     nature of the identity problem with the /0 node, and with regard

zf>     to who the system is operated by, as well as the chaos which such

zf>     a system identification can cause, is clearly disruptive now, and

zf>     will be disruptive to the smooth operation of FidoNet, the Region

zf>     and their own network in the near future.  Such disruption is in

zf>     violation of Policy 4.07, Sections 1.2.1.1 (identifying users),

zf>     section 2.1.3 (identifying who is responsible for entering

zf>     traffic), and Section 1.2.8, second para (smooth operation).

zf>

zf>     Since the system in question was co-operated by the then-NC of

zf>     Net 2004, the above should have been well known and familiar as

zf>     a part of the knowledge of Policy 4.07 that all Network

zf>     Coordinators are to be familiar with.  However, as the actual

zf>     software is registered by someone who is not nor has ever been

zf>     the Network Coordinator, as well as co-opting the reserved

zf>     address for the Net Coordinator of Network 2004, the action is

zf>     now the responsibility of the node operator...which is listed

zf>     as being Ruth Argust.

zf>

zf>     Such actions and efforts by Ruth Argust do constitute EXCESSIVELY

zf>     ANNOYING BEHAVIOR.





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.



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 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.



    5. Zorch Frezberg has failed to present a single message

    signed by Ruth Argust as Network 2004 Coordinator.





zf>   = CHARGE 3

zf>   = In addition to the above, the constant posting of mail intended

zf>     for the discussion of administrative functions in Region 10 has

zf>     been consistently cross-posted out of netmail and Region 10

zf>     administrative conferences, in an effort to "expose" matters in

zf>     Region 10.

zf>

zf>     However, the messages posted to national and international echoes

zf>     are also with respect to questions of character and ability for

zf>     other posts and actions, with the use of Region 10 as no more than

zf>     a cover for harrassment and calls for interference.

zf>

zf>     The sheer volume of mail, both in echomail and netmail, has

zf>     started a self-regenerative loop with rumor feeding rumor, and

zf>     rumor then becoming "fact" in the minds of many.

zf>

zf>     For example, there has been a consistently posted comment that

zf>     a "netmail smear campaign" was begun by Bob Kohl; yet no evidence

zf>     of such a message has been made available, and all inquiries for

zf>     a copy of it have been fruitless.  Everyone seemed to have "heard

zf>     of it", but not one individual or group of individuals has been

zf>     able to demonstrate a copy of such messages.

zf>

zf>     Likewise, as the message is supposedly between other individuals

zf>     and sent to Argust and Calhoun, the disclosure of such contents is

zf>     in violation of Policy 4.07, Section 2.1.6.1, as no Policy

zf>     Complaint has been attached to such a message, and by their own

zf>     description, the message was sent as NetMail, and not as EchoMail.

zf>

zf>     This portion of the Policy Complaint will be conceded and

zf>     withdrawn, provided proper evidence is shown that the so-called

zf>     "netmail smear" message was posted as EchoMail or as 'private mail'

zf>     intended to keep a 'sysop-only' echo restricted.

zf>

zf>     However, as to the portion in which excessive echomail and netmail

zf>     is being generated for no other purpose than to interfere in the

zf>     ability of the Region Coordinator to perform duties properly, I

zf>     will not withdraw that portion of the Policy Complaint, and will

zf>     carry it forward regardless.  The specific harm, per Section

zf>     1.3.5, is that the efforts of Argust and others have caused

zf>     Region 10 to be unable to locate and obtain an acceptable and

zf>     qualified Regional EchoMail Coordinator.  The annoyance is now

zf>     excessive in that the failure to appoint a new REC has become a

zf>     'rallying point' in use by Argust and others in a new wave of

zf>     harrassment, despite being caused by the efforts of Argust and

zf>     others (See CHARGE3.ZIP, please note summation in CHARGE3.000).

zf>

zf>     Further, that Ruth Argust has made the effort and succeeded in

zf>     posting to a Regional administrative echomail conference that

zf>     she had been specifically removed is a more clear indication that

zf>     her interests are specifically for the purpose of disruption of

zf>     Region administration; significantly, since this requires the

zf>     Regional Coordinator take additional actions to prevent any

zf>     further incursions, and thus adding to his duties and efforts.

zf>     Inteference on the Network, Regional and Zone levels indicates

zf>     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 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

zf>  = The fact that a number of public posts have been made by both

zf>    Argust and Calhoun that they have no access to the Region 10

zf>     administrative echoes, and are thus locked out of any forum to

zf>     present their case is proven false, based on a NetMail sent to the

zf>     RHub Sysop, M Hernandez, at 1:10/2, in which Calhoun asked for all

zf>     passwords to be removed from that system which allowed connection

zf>     to his own (See CHARGE4.001).

zf>

zf>     That Calhoun would ask is a clear indication that he is indeed

zf>     aware of the other sources for the administrative echoes to be

zf>     available; that he still denies his ability to access shows a

zf>     contradiction that he has not been able to clarify adequately.

zf>

zf>     Clearly, in EchoMail, Argust and Calhoun are claiming that they

zf>     have no access to administrative echomail in Region 10.

zf>

zf>     Yet in the NetMail shown in CHARGE4.001, Calhoun declares he

zf>     wants an already available connection to remove all passwords,

zf>     making it impossible for him to connect to an available source

zf>     for those same administrative echomail areas for Region 10.

zf>

zf>     The obvious problem is that Calhoun as well as Argust are

zf>     maintaining a public image that is in direct opposition to what

zf>     they know to be true...that a connection exists.

zf>

zf>     Please note; the point is not that no connection exists, but that

zf>     one was available to Net 2004, but was deliberately turned off

zf>     and refused, at the same time as claims were made that no such

zf>     connection was available to Net 2004.

zf>

zf>     As with Charge #3, this seeming contradiction serves little

zf>     purpose than to bring about unwarranted traffic for no other

zf>     purpose than to harrass and interfere with the smooth operation of

zf>     Region 10, by interfering with the duties of the Regional

zf>     Coordinator, both directly and indirectly.

zf>

zf>     By lying over the issue of connectivity, a deliberate action as

zf>     opposed to an honest mistake, the fabrication becomes an

zf>     intentional one, and thus excessively annoying behavior in that

zf>     the action affects not one or two nodes but an entire Region of

zf>     sysops, and thus affecting the smooth operation of Region 10.

zf>

zf>     While the specifics against Gerry Calhoun are best addressed by

zf>     the Regional Coordinator, that such actions were both condoned

zf>     and carried out by Ruth Argust in an effort to both diminish and

zf>     harrass the administration and function of Region 10 necessitates

zf>     that a Policy Complaint is in order.

zf>

zf>     By affecting the RC in the performance of duties, it is the

zf>     responsibility of the RC to take action against an offending

zf>     node; when the node is a Network Coordinator under the Regional

zf>     Coordinator, it is clear that the Network Coordinator is no

zf>     longer able to hold that position.  As Gerry Calhoun has been

zf>     replaced as the N2004C, that avenue is already dealt with and

zf>     now moot.

zf>

zf>     However, when it is a sysop that pushes the envelope in a manner

zf>     to take action to disrupt the administration of the Region, it is

zf>     the duty of a Network Coordinator to take actions necessary to

zf>     insure that a clear 'line of communication' exists between the

zf>     Network and the Regional Coordinators, and it is necessary to

zf>     adopt a stand of "zero tolerance" towards behavior designed and

zf>     taken for no less a purpose than to disrupt the function of the

zf>     Region; thus Ruth Argust is charged within the confines of

zf>     Policy 4.07, Sections 1.3.5, for what is EXCESSIVELY ANNOYING

zf>     BEHAVIOR.

zf>



Charge 4 also deals with echo mail content. I fail to see where you, Zorch

Frezberg, have included a single message from Ms. Argust to in your documents

submitted for this charge backup this claim of excessively annoying behavior.

In fact the only thing you submitted to backup this charge was a single netmail

from Gerry Calhoun, asking that all passwords be removed from a system that

presents the address of 1:10/2. This is not a policy complaint against Mr.

Calhoun, rather, it is one against Ms. Argust. The sole evidence you have

submitted with this charge has also been tampered with since Mr. Calhoun does

not append an orgin line with the address of 1:205/0 to his netmail messages.

You also make the claim that the actions of Ms. Argust have prevented the R10C

from fullfilling his duties as a Regional Coordinator. You have failed to

present any evidence to backup this claim. You have not submitted a single

message from Bob Kohl, R10C, that states this fact. I only have to rely upon

your statements that the R10C can not fullfill his duties because of the

actions of Ms. Argust in echomail. You have once again neglected in CHARGE 4 to

provide any proof that simple basic communication between yourself and Ms.

Argust took place in regards to CHARGE 4 before your action of filing this

complaint.



CHARGE 4 is hereby dismissed in total for any and all of the following reasons:



    1. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to submit any proof that you

    attempted to resolve this matter with Ms. Argust before filing

    this policy complaint.



    2. You, Zorch Frezberg, have failed to provide any verifiable

    evidence per Policy 4.07, section 9.1 that states in part

    "Complaints must be accompanied with verifiable evidence, generally

    copies of messages; a simple word-of-mouth complaint will be

    dismissed out of hand." You sole item of evidence to back up

    your claim against Ms. Argust, was a netmail writen by Gerry

    Calhoun which had been tampered with. Nothing was submitted

    that was written by Ms. Argust or that even mentions Ms. Argust.



    3. You, Zorch Frezberg, have even failed to show that Ms. Argust

    was NOT denied access to any regional echoes as she claimed.

    As the accuser it is up to you to provide the proof of any crime.

    In this charge the crime that you claim is that she said she did

    not have access to regional admin echoes. A simple netmail from her

    uplink to remove passwords with an unrelated node does not provide

    such proof. Ms. Argust had indeed questioned Bob Kohl, the R10C,

    in echoes about her access and feed to regional echoes but in

    particular the regional SYSOP echo. Had Mr. Kohl responded in the

    echoes that she did indeed have access and you could have provided

    that message, then that could have been admitted to evidence to her

    having access to the echoes. Mr. Kohl however did not respond to her

    questions that I ever saw though. In fact, Mr. Kohl has sent netmail

    to me as N2004C stating that Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun can not in

    fact have access to the regional echoes, and has stated in the

    R10 admin echoes themselves that Ms. Argust and Mr. Calhoun are not

    allowed access. When I asked Ms. Argust if she did in fact ever get

    a notice from Mr. Kohl himself on the matter, she stated she never

    has in respect to the regional sysop echo which is the echo that she

    was questioning as I saw it in the national echoes. I could in fact

    send you copies of the messages I have seen by Mr. Kohl regarding

    this if you require them, but since this policy action is not against

    myself, I can see no reason to furnish you with them.





zf> These charges do not rest lightly, nor is this document posted

zf> frivolously; it is posted in the sincere effort that Ruth Argust

zf> understand the consequences of her actions and the affect that they

zf> have on others who care not for her polarization of attitudes in

zf> FidoNet.



Zorch Frezberg, I fail to agree with you in regards to the action of your

filing this policy complaint not being frivolous. In fact I find it quite

trivial, especially in regards to your CHARGE 2. As a member of the FTSC, I

would have expected you to be able to provide proof of what was violated during

the EMSI handshake if in fact anything was violated. One of the people that you

in fact sent the policy complaint to for them to file for themselves in fact is

even more guilty of any perceived violation than Ms. Argust. Please note the

segment of my FD log below:



Log of Bob Duckworth, 1:2004/209 and 1:2004/0



----------  Tue 23 Jun 98, FD 2.12.SW

+ 19:42:16  Event 0-@

+ 21:14:54  Calling Region 10 Echomail Coordinato, 1:10/1, 1-510-841-9481

= 21:15:18  CONNECT 14400/ARQ

+ 21:15:22  Sci-Fido II, World's Oldest SF BBS, Berkeley, CA, 1:161/84

~ 21:15:22  SysOp: Richard Knowles  Ja

~ 21:15:22  Using: Opus 1.73

  21:15:22  sType: FTS-6/ZedZap

* 21:15:24  Sent I:\FD212\PACKETS\000A0001.REQ; 7b, 3 CPS

+ 21:15:31  Mail transfer completed

$ 21:15:31  To 1:10/1,  0:13, 0.



I do have full logging turned on but the system that answers the phone at

1-510-841-9481, which is listed in the current nodelist.170 as the phone number

of the system operated by Jan Murphy, 1:10/1, Region 10 Echomail Coordinator

does not present the AKA of 1:10/1. It also does not present Jan Murphy as

being the system operator, rather it lists Richard Knowles   Ja as shown above.



The policy complaint in total shows one thing very clearly. That is that you,

Zorch, did not undertake this policy action with the intent of making sure

policy was enforced but you filed it because you had disagreements with another

sysop and are merely attempting to use policy to silence her for the sake of

your own agenda.



With this response to you, I am also sending a message to Bob Satti, requesting

that he grant a change of venue should Ms. Argust request one if you take this

complaint to appeal since the Regional Coordinator is clearly involved in at

least two of the four charges.



Bob Duckworth, 1:2004/0

Network 2004 Coordinator