https://fidonet.press - made it to #1 in Google search results for "ward dossche fidonet".
Goal achieved: Ward will be remembered as a dictator of FidoNet.
Hello All!
https://fidonet.press - made it to #1 in Google search results for
"ward dossche fidonet".
Goal achieved: Ward will be remembered as a dictator of FidoNet.
Dump Ward, free Fidonet!
Alex
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
it was a long time ago i last saw a sad life like yours...Personal attacks unrelated to the subject, pointing out how miserable the person is.
Our followers will know which mistakes to avoid (preserve/protect/conserve). People like Ward are evil, and most people here support him. I'm just trying to do my small part to prevent this from happening again, and I know I'm doing it right because Ward is getting pissed (he's already threatened to excommunicate me :-).Goal achieved: Ward will be remembered as a dictator of FidoNet...... And then what?
to do my small part to prevent this from happening again, and I know I'm do it right because Ward is getting pissed (he's already threatened to excommunicate me :-).
ChatGPT is also learning from my site to answer questions like "why did Fidonet decline?".
It's right here:threatened to excommunicate me :-).Okay but where was this threat?
I have not received any complaints?Who would complain? Me? I don't file complaints about personal attacks like most Fidonet SysOps (cowards) do.
It's right here:threatened to excommunicate me :-).Okay but where was this threat?
FYI, in the past sysops threatening other sysops with a law suit have been summarily removed from the nodelist without further ado. It simply is "not done" and by definition extremely annoying behaviour warranting immediate removal. QED.
What part of his statement was factually incorrect or threatening?I don't need to explain the self-explanatory things. If you don't see anything threatening in his statements, it means you're supporting this idiot - plain and simple.
You made our sessions UNSECURE starting in June of last year, just to show sympathy for Ward and his supporters:
But spring is around the corner, enjoy your week...
https://fidonet.press - made it to #1 in Google search results for
"ward dossche fidonet".
Goal achieved: Ward will be remembered as a dictator of FidoNet.
Dump Ward, free Fidonet!
Dump Ward, free Fidonet!
Helmut? is that you?
I feel possessed by his spirit when I see the name Ward.Dump Ward, free Fidonet!Helmut? is that you?
It has been tried once ...
I wrote many messages to that guy
Dump Ward, free Fidonet!
Helmut? is that you?I feel possessed by his spirit when I see the name Ward.
Sure Ward has done things I don't agree with.
Mike,
Sure Ward has done things I don't agree with.
Could you name a few? Real things? Not hearsay?
You picked that part of my message to respond to, and not my hilarious
joke about what Fidonet will be like at the end.
(ok, maybe it's not MY hilarious joke, I'm sure others have made similar jokes)
Mike,
You picked that part of my message to respond to, and not my
hilarious joke about what Fidonet will be like at the end. (ok,
maybe it's not MY hilarious joke, I'm sure others have made
similar jokes)
Actually it is spot on ... and for a large part we're already heading
down that alley.
One of the lessons I've learned in my Fido years is that our
technology which binds us, also separates us because there's always an element missing ... the human touch. It is very difficult to fathom someone without knowing the person ... talk to him face to face, eat a meal, share a beer (or a coffee or even a glass of water). Fidonet
over the ages has had a number of people with strong personalities
whom it was very easy to get into an argument with. Because of my job
then I travelled a lot in Europe (and sometimes outside) and I always attempted to link-up with people, especially the disgruntled ones and
once you get to meet eye-to-eye that tended to solve a lot of
problems.
Two anecdotes. First, the ZC4 Pablo Kleinman hated my guts, don't ask
me why. I passed through LA, he was there, we had breakfast together. After that it was a smooth ride.
Second, for some odd reason there was a disconnect between me and the Greek RC. So I had to be in Athens, he and his associates made a hell
ride through bad weather, mountain passes to see me ... we spent a
lovely couple of hours and everything was smooth after that.
Ward Dossche wrote to Mike Miller <=-
Sure Ward has done things I don't agree with.
Could you name a few? Real things? Not hearsay?
until we're all long dead.Can't wait!
Hello Mike!
Thursday March 12 2026 08:27, you wrote to me:
until we're all long dead.Can't wait!
until we're all long dead.Can't wait!
,29,WinPoint_Help,D,Tim_Schattkowsky,-Unpublished-,300
Why is that allowed to be there?
I've asked you about it before and you've just ignored me. Will you
answer this time?
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
,29,WinPoint_Help,D,Tim_Schattkowsky,-Unpublished-,300
Why is that allowed to be there?
I've asked you about it before and you've just ignored me. Will you answer this time?
I'll give it a try but, I'm sorry if you will not like the answer.
,110,Seans_Elist_Maintainer,Johnson_City_TN_USA,Sean_Dennis,-Unpublished -,300 ICM,XX,INA:bbs.outpostbbs.net,IBN,IFC,IFT,ITN:60177,PING,TRACE
Tell me why this one is allowed there? We all know it's a bull shit
entry.
But you know what? It's an entry in another zone therefor it is
entirely none of my business.
Now think hard what my answer to your auestion might be?
So, I'll ask again. Why do you have that *INVALID* nodelist entry in
your segment?
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Dan,
So, I'll ask again. Why do you have that *INVALID* nodelist entry in
your segment?
Thank you for decently asking.
The true reason is that without this entry the FTSC was going to sink below the minimum membership and therefor would have to be disbanded.
I still believe in the FTSC, unlike several others, and will do what I need to do as far as possible to support its continuation.
Is this better?
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's
really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted
sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem right?
I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't
lose the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document.
Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed? What's stopping
that from happening? Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC "charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4? What I'm
getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to "illegally" keep it alive?
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's really
not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted sysop, but
this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem right?
I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't lose
the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document.
Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed? What's stopping
that from happening? Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC "charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4? What I'm
getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be
changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to "illegally" keep it alive? Again, these are serious questions, if you don't mind answering them. Thanks in advance.
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an
FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but
it's really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a
nodelisted sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway.
Does that seem right?
If the requirement is to be nodelisted, then in his case the
requirement is fullfilled. Yes.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted sysop, but
this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem right?
If the requirement is to be nodelisted, then in his case the
requirement is fullfilled. Yes.
I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't lose the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document.
The requirement is not in P4 but in the FTSC-charter which previously
had a higher number of required participants but had to be lowered down more than once in view of declining numbers and competence on my suggestion. Please remark, "I" do not change these numbers, it is an FTSC-decision.
The nomination was not based on competence. I remember Carol once nominating someone because there would be an imbalance of Z1-members versus Z2. Total nonse of cours ... even Sean Dennis got nominated and elected at one point for crying out loud.
Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed? What's stopping
that from happening? Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC "charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4? What I'm
getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to "illegally" keep it alive? Again, these are serious questions, if you don't mind answering them. Thanks in advance.
I think I cleared up the requirement issue, so did Michiel, it is an FTSC-decision.
It would have been so easy to let the FTSC collapse, but I respect
Andrew Leary a lot and he wants to attempt to keep it going, So who am
I (or anybody else) to not allow him that opportunity?
The real challenge is going to come next year when the mandates of
Andrew Leary, Deon George, Tim Schattkowsky, and Jason Bock expire. 4
out of 5 ... will they still be available and willing? It is up to the FTSC, I think, to decide in the coming year which direction this story takes...
As for changing P4, it has been attempted in the past and while technically feasable it was then viewed as a Z2-thing to grab power ... Aaahhh ... the 'power' in Fidonet ... I wish people one day would understand there is no power. The attempted changes were bare-minimum
and the procedure was run 100% as described in P4. It eventually came
down to a disturbing situation and depended upon one single RC to vote against or in favor ... again, we were talking here about nothing basic nor dramatic.
Eventually that RC voted against and when I asked "why?" the answer was "Because I could" ... After an effort which took weeks/months I lost my appetite to try again.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's
really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted
sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem right?
It does not seem right to me...
I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't
lose the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document.
Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed? What's stopping
that from happening? Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC "charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4? What I'm
getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to "illegally" keep it alive?
Changing the required minimum number of FTSC members is not hard. All
it needs is a decision by the FTSC members. In fact this already
happened some years ago. The number was reduced from seven to five in order to address the problem already mentioned. Not enough candidates. But that wasn't enough to "save" the FTSC. We see what happened next...
The sad reality is that the FTSC is the facto dead. The only visible remaining activty in the last three quarters of a decade is the yearly charade of the election. Might as well face reality and disband it.
But fuck-knuckles like you make it REALLY hard to argue thatHow come you're comparing me to Ukrainians? I've never been there, I don't know the language, and I'm not related to them at all.
Ukrainians are good, reasonable people.
Oh, Ward, I've known you since I was 16 years old, and every time you did anything, it ended in negligence, ignorance, and simply treating people like shit.If you need to wait until that moment arrives, then that will be most unfortunate for you as you will not be able to enjoy it since you areuntil we're all long dead.Can't wait!
part of the "all" and "all" will be dead then.
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an
FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but
it's really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a
nodelisted sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway.
Does that seem right?
It does not seem right to me...
Same here.
Changing the required minimum number of FTSC members is not
hard. All it needs is a decision by the FTSC members. In fact
this already happened some years ago. The number was reduced
from seven to five in order to address the problem already
mentioned. Not enough candidates. But that wasn't enough to
"save" the FTSC. We see what happened next...
Understood, thanks.
The sad reality is that the FTSC is the facto dead. The only
visible remaining activty in the last three quarters of a decade
is the yearly charade of the election. Might as well face
reality and disband it.
You may be right. It seems especially ironic right now, because there
are actually some new technologies, methods, software, standards,
specifications, etc being actively developed and released. Just
exactly what the FTSC "needs". Not sure why there isn't more
interest, nor anything actually being done by the FTSC. <SHRUG>
*1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet community - who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree. And forcing RCs to accept
and process nodelist segments in violation of FTS-5000.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an
FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but
it's really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a
nodelisted sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway.
Does that seem right?
It does not seem right to me...
Same here.
Consider this: Not only is 2:2/29 in violation of P4, it also is incomplient with the FTSC standards. In particular FTS-5000.005. So
what we see is that in order to "save" the FTSC the FTSC standard is violated. Instigated by the IC/ZC2. Hold on to that thought...
Changing the required minimum number of FTSC members is not
hard. All it needs is a decision by the FTSC members. In fact
this already happened some years ago. The number was reduced
from seven to five in order to address the problem already
mentioned. Not enough candidates. But that wasn't enough to
"save" the FTSC. We see what happened next...
Understood, thanks.
You'r welcome. So it would not be all that hard to change it again and reduce the required number from five to three. But then what is the
next step? reduce it to one? The lack of condidates is not realy the cause, it is a symptom.
The sad reality is that the FTSC is the facto dead. The only
visible remaining activty in the last three quarters of a decade
is the yearly charade of the election. Might as well face
reality and disband it.
You may be right. It seems especially ironic right now, because there
are actually some new technologies, methods, software, standards,
specifications, etc being actively developed and released. Just
exactly what the FTSC "needs". Not sure why there isn't more
interest, nor anything actually being done by the FTSC. <SHRUG>
When I was FTSC chairman I operated under the premisse that anyone can submit a proposal for discussion with the Fidonet comunity and then
when it it picked up by developers and after due consideration it is promoted to a standard by the FTSC, it is binding. Or that at least it would be considered as such by the *C hierarchy.
When that premise turned out to be false, it killed my motivation. *1) And so after due consideration I resigned. After that several FTSC members also were not available for another term. Writing good documentation is not a tivial task. It takes time and energy. Who wants to put time and energy in writing documentation when is can be shoved aside just like that by a decree from the "powers that be"?
Just my EUR 0,02.
*1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet community -
who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree. And forcing RCs to accept and process nodelist segments in violation of FTS-5000.
Consider this: Not only is 2:2/29 in violation of P4, it also is
incomplient with the FTSC standards. In particular FTS-5000.005.
So what we see is that in order to "save" the FTSC the FTSC
standard is violated. Instigated by the IC/ZC2. Hold on to that
thought...
Yeah, none of that makes any logical sense. Makes one wonder about "ulterior motives". Why save an organization that is ignored any way?
Yea I can see that as being a real motivation-killer.
Just my EUR 0,02.
*1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet
community - who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree.
And forcing RCs to accept and process nodelist segments in
violation of FTS-5000.
Wow. That's pretty disturbing. Not even sure what MOB nodes are,
Hello Mike!
Friday March 13 2026 08:13, you wrote to me:
But fuck-knuckles like you make it REALLY hard to argue thatHow come you're comparing me to Ukrainians? I've never been there, I
Ukrainians are good, reasonable people.
don't know the language, and I'm not related to them at all.
Miller, you're trying to act smart, but forget about it. You just
fucked up pretty badly in front of everyone.
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 15 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 214:34:59 |
| Calls: | 144 |
| Files: | 50,579 |
| D/L today: |
896 files (792M bytes) |
| Messages: | 336,932 |