Trisha Cummings <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Deri,
>
> i was requesting to an inquirey from Bob and I do
> believe I was rerquesting input from others - as to their
> feelings about - If that wasn't clear - I am sorry. I did not
> say I considered spamming merely - it could be a possibility
> depending on your view. Therefore if one person had a complaint
> perhaps others do and have the right to voice their opinion.
>
Yes, I was responding to your request for input (and Bob's
assertion that this was Spam), and giving you my personal opinion
of the situation.
> > > Can we take a poll about this? Are their others who object
> > > to this. Please give me some feed back and we can determine
> > > what to do from there.
> > >
> > Darrell Paulsen has CP, is active in disability rights, and
> > is currently standing for public office. Given these facts it
> > is difficult to understand under what criteria for "spamming"
> > you are considering his posts. As you are aware, I feel we do
> > not have a mandate, as merely list administrators, to police
> > membership nor content of posts (except in very rare and
> > obvious circumstances). I was very pleased to see you
> > posting:-
> >
> > "The list is open to all topics - everyone has delete key"
> >
> > when someone queried the recent preponderance of religious
> > posts. So we can all see which way you will "vote".
>
>
> I do not believe I have ever said we did.
>
(I assume you are referring to "mandate" above). No you haven't,
but the fact that you are asking "Can we take a poll about this?"
does show that you consider it appropriate that we consider
"banning" posters because we don't like what they post. This is
where we diverge in our thinking, I fervently believe that any
poster is perfectly entitled to express themselves in any way
they want to on this list, but once they release their pearls of
wisdom onto their peers there is no point in them whingeing if
several respond with stinging criticism.
>
>
> > Bob's done the sensible thing of adding a filter to stop
> > receiving the Paulsen Posts (if he doesn't want to read them)
> > there is no reason for us to do more.
>
> Cool - this is something I don't know how to do -
> perhaps you could post instructions to the list.
>
Unfortunately you are using Microsoft Outlook 5 which I don't use
so I am afraid I can't advise. Broadly, a mail filter is a
conditional expression which examines various mail headers (most
usefully "From:") and you specify what you want the filter to do
- dump it in a separate folder / junk it without reading / or
"bounce" it. I would ask people to be careful with "bounce", make
sure it's aimed at the poster not the list serve (they might all
get forwarded to me as non deliveries :-().
Have a look in your help for the following keywords:-
filters
mail filters
bounce
local delivery policy
>
> > > Recently there have been two ongoing topics of discussion
> > > on the SJUowners list - the first was on webclipping.com -
> > > and the major push they were making by joining everyone
> > > lists and then I guess collecting info to sell things -
> > No, their clients are typically manufacturers, and their
> > service is to clip posts which relate to their clients'
> > products. So if one of their clients was a wheelchair
> > manufacturer and one of the C-PALSY posters mentioned a
> > design problem with their chair, hopefully this would get
> > clipped and sent back to the manufacturer. Many companies
> > offer this service for other forms of media - what is the
> > problem?
> > > As soon as I saw one join the list - I instantly deleted
> > Shame, our voice will not be heard!!
>
> My assumption is they will try agian. There are few people
> more obnoxious or persistance than sales people.
I thought this was job 2 of 2 Trisha. ;-)
(This IS a joke Trisha, I seem to remember you telling us you
worked part time in a jewellers)
> As far as I am concerned before this allowed people should be
> told and polled - They no we make the rules - remember - this
> why I have now put the stuff up for a vote. Its easy enough to
> readd someone.
>
Why? If I write to a local newspaper complaining about some
product or service, a newspaper clipping service is under no
obligation to notify me that they have clipped the letter and
forwarded to the company concerned. Once I have posted that
letter it is in the public domain. I see this as an analagous
situation.
Incidentally, your next paragraph makes it clear that you were
not considering having a vote on this subject. You asked if I had
added the filter yet. You may not be aware that Randy's "coding"
would have blocked ALL e-mail from that particular domain, thus
preventing a person with CP who wished to join the list who
worked for "webclipping.com". I don't think this would be fair.
>
> > > - had some coding to add to keep this from happening - Deri
> > > - did you add it? - or do we need to discuss this.
> > >
> > No, this list is "open" to any individual, company (or
> > robot!!!).
>
> Ummmm - I think maybe list members should make this
> decision!!!
>
This was purely a statement of fact given the current settings of
our List Header as they are now and have been since inception.
You may be a bit confused about the difference between an "open"
(free and unregulated) list and a "closed" (private and
regimented) list, so I have gone into this in a bit more detail
below.
I agree with you that if you want to alter the basis of the way
this list operates (away from its "open" status as it is now) it
certainly is a matter for all list members to make a decision.
> > > > In my opinion, it is the same as if everybody decided
> > > > they wanted to use Blue Mountain Greeting cards to
> > > > communicate with and thereby have Blue Mountain sending
> > > > their "You have a Greeting Card!" message to the list for
> > > > everybody to go and pick up, read and reply to.
> > > >
> > He's not having a go at you is he Trisha? We'd miss all those
> > greeting card type messages you send to the list.
>
> No Deri, I don't he is - Randy is a friend of mine - if he
> had a problem - he would address me directly. Many people enjoy
> getting those cards - and the delete key is available to the
> others. This statement came across a bit sarcastic to me - did
> you mean it that way?
>
No sarcasm intended at all. It just struck me as mildly amusing
that you posted a paragraph from Randy denigrating a practice
which he equated with Shoutmail's service, which you do quite
often. Since I disagree with Randy about banning Shoutmail post
it goes without saying that I defend your right to post e-cards
whenever you want.
> > Shoutmail's service is certainly better than receiving a 250k
> > .wav file as an attachment (which wouldn't get through the
> > lists length limit anyway!!). Randy's main objection is lack
> > of relavent subject line, I'm sure Shoutmail could "fix" this
> > if enough people asked.
>
> you know we keep the list stuff simple becasue not eveyone
> has fancy computer that handle fancy stuff - it seems the more
> complex you let things become - people with limited computer
> access and simple systems lose out. I run a fancy system at
> work and at home but have no sound capibility at work. I think
> this would exclude some people. I, of course could be wrong. I
> feel anything which would exclude members is not a step up.
Ah, I see what you are getting at. However I look at it this way:
if I walked into a pub and two deaf people were using sign
language to communicate, I would defend their right to continue
using sign language even though the majority of the pub users do
not understand sign language and feel left out when they see the
deaf couple having fun that they can't understand. Isn't this
what you are arguing above, that a form of communication (voice)
which may be the easiest communication forum for certain
disabilities, should be banned from the list because some
(including me!!) could not receive it.
> You may have a much better understanding of this. But
> regardless of our thoughts - as you keep reminding me for fear
> I will do something awful - its not our decision - which is why
> I mentioned it. I am not sure why you object to everything I do
> - Is it becasue I am a Bitch or a Witch? Or lol both!!
This is rather an exagerration. I do not "object to everything"
you do. I sometimes disagree with things that you post, but not
with your right to post them.
If you look back at our disagreements I think you will find that
the majority of them are when I feel, right or wrong, that you
are trying to change the "open" traditions of this list.
>
> Brightest Blessings
> Trisha
>
>
OPEN AND CLOSED LISTS
=====================
The Listserv software which StJohns University uses to run the
Maelstrom list server offers three broad areas where a list can
decide whether it will be "open" or "closed":-
1. Membership.
A list can be "open" and allow automatic membership to anyone who
chooses to subscribe. A closed list does not allow automatic
membership, anyone who tries to subscribe triggers a call to a
List Administrator who can then, over private e-mail, "interview"
the potential member.
C-PALSY has currently "open" membership, anyone can join without
satisfying any arbritary criteria.
2. Posting Content.
An "open" list has no set guidelines on content of posts sent to
the list, other than normal social pressures to "behave". A
closed list has rigid "etiquette" rules on subject, content, and
tone. To enforce this etiquette all posts can be delivered to a
List Administrator in their role as "moderator", who then decides
whether to allow the post to be released onto the list.
C-PALSY has no set content rules at the moment.
3. Archiving
On an "open" list all posts to the list are placed on an archive
which is accessible to the whole world. A "closed" list restricts
archive access to list members only, or in some cases maintains
no archive at all.
C-PALSY archives can be used as a reference source by any person
with Internet access.
As you can see, in each of these categories, C-PALSY is and
always has been an example of the "open" philosophy. There is
only one area where we are not fully "open", the list insists
that all posters are list members, this is simply to ensure that
the address the post comes from is an actual e-mail address and
so prevent "anonymous" posting using non-existent addresses.
There are several good reasons why a list may decide to "close"
certain of these areas.
Membership may be closed to only those holding a certain
qualification to ensure that questions discussed are at a
sufficiently high technical level to not waste the time of list
participants, i.e. specialised branches of medicine and law.
Membership and archiving may be closed in lists dealing with
topics of a very private and personal nature.
Content may be closed in lists which act as support groups for
very vulnerable groups of the population.
I do not think any of these reasons apply particularly to
C-PALSY.
Cheers,
--
Deri James
|
