At 11:36 PM 9/21/96 -0500, Greg Sandborn wrote:
At 11:09 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Jeanne Hedge wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what you're ranting about. I had absolutely no
trouble sending this message to BOTH the list and to you personally. All I
had to do was click the "Reply All" button instead of the "Reply" button on
Eudora. They are right next to each other on the toolbar.
Actually, Jeanne, it is not. I have Eudora 1.5.4 and that option has
been made 'always or never' in my version.
hmm... remind me not to go from 1.4.4 to 1.5.4 then.
In any case, Martin's point, while a bit over blown, is quite
accurate.
His complaint is not so much the 'explicit' workings of the FFML but rather
the
'implicit' suggestions of the act itself. Suggestions, I might add, that have
been reenforced by the recent "SHUT THE HELL UP" note so 'elouquently' posted
by Mr. Entomorph. Consider it a 'spam and die' situation.
Then count me as one who would rather die. Personally, I get rather sick of
getting "System Privelege" warnings from my provider 2 or 3 times a day
because my mailbox has exploded while I was at work or asleep, and then
finding that I am deleting 95% of those same messages unread because they
are total garbage (and yes, I freely admit I was involved in one of those
unproductive exchanges not too long ago)
You, no doubt, have
noticed the reduced traffic on this ML.
Yes. And I also noticed that it was greatly reducing 3-4 weeks (or more)
before WW's most recent warning. In other words, I don't think WW's latest
warning had a thing to do with traffic reduction because the traffic was
already reduced before he gave it.
<snip>
Even the usual amounts of C&C are down;
*What* C+C? The amount of C+C posted directly to this list has always been
on the light side, IMO. And the amount of list-posted C+C I've seen
recently seems to be at about the same level as always.
I'm sure
an unintended side effect of the colder than usual atmosphere generated by
the new censorship.
What censorship? Nobody's stopping you from posting anything you want.
What all this has done to the 'lurkers' out there who, in
the past, would feel free to 'unmask' once in awhile to comment on a story
they particularly liked, cannot be positive.
And I think that if any lurkers were so inclined to unlurk to comment on a
story, the recent lower spam levels just make it easier for them to find the
fics.
In any case, any actions that embolden people to post responses
such as
"SHUT THE HELL UP", are dangerous to the free exchange of ideas and should be
abhorred by all.
Gee. And here I thought that "Shut the hell up" was just someone exercising
the freedom of speech you seem to think this list is lacking in. Just as
Martin's original post was an exercise in free speech that supported the
opposing opinion.
<snip>
Tell me... did you like it better when the "reply-to" field automatically
routed all messages to /dev/null, as it was 3-4 days ago? At least now the
"reply-to" field sends your message replies to a PERSON instead of the big
trashcan in the ethernet.
This is a specious argument, at best. Removing all freedom, then
restoring partial freedom is no improvement. Declaring a police state but
changing it to allow everyone to come and go only to work, is hardly an
improvement. And that is, basically, what has occurred.
Well, since you earlier said that WW can do what he wants with this list,
then I guess that makes this a dictatorship. Last time I looked, ALL
mailing lists are dictatorships, and you either follow the list-owner's
rules or you leave. So what's the problem? Why is this list so different
from any of the others? (one of my other lists has a *very* active
list-owner, who posts warnings about excessive off-topic posts quite often.
nobody over there flips out the way some people over here seem to do
whenever she does it)
<snip>
Face it, Jeanne. A lot has changed on this list, starting with
its general atmosphere. And, yes, there is a great deal stopping each of
us from voicing our real feelings concerning the recent situation; the
unpredictability of our status should we catch the moderator on a 'bad day'.
Are you *really* that afraid of WW?
As for allowing myself to be subject to the 'ultimate' penalty; being kicked
off the ML for voicing my opinions, not all of us are so free with which
service provider we choose. Not all of us can easily and cavalierly switch to
another e-mail address to avoid detection by WW on re-sub.
Tell me about it - there is only 1 ISP in my area, so I certainly couldn't
do it, unless I resubbed with one of the 'big boys' (like netcom) or did it
on my Compuserve account. And I can't do it on my CIS account because the
mailbox couldn't support the traffic either.
<snip>
It's just that I think
too many are, as Martin put it, scared to voice their objections for fear of
paying the 'ultimate ML price'. I, too, am a little apprehensive about how
WW will react to my concerns.
I absolutely canNOT believe how many people seem to be in fear of WW. Are
people on this list really *that* insecure?
Jeanne Hedge
http://www.accsyst.com/jhedge/
* * *
APOLOGIZE, v.i. To lay the foundation for a future offence.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"