Bob,

1) It's harder to ignore a written letter than email and
2) Letters are more of an effort than emails and so shows a constituent
cared enough to actually sit down and write one and spend the money to
post it.

Kat

c p wrote:
> Kyle:
>
> I can't argue with something from the horse's mouth,
> and I wish now I had followed up with it in letter
> form.   However I still can't believe sheer volume
> ("Good Lord, Your Majesty, we received 40,000 e-mails
> today - 14 favored your war.") wouldn't be noticed.
>
> I knew my letter wouldn't make a bit of difference,
> but I wanted to at least be able to someday say I
> spoke out.
>
> I'll still e-mail, but I'll follow up by telegram or
> snail-mail.
> BOB
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> From:         "Cleveland, Kyle E."
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject:      Re: representative accountability; was
> RE: Quiz About 9/11
> To:           [log in to unmask]
> X-Airmail-Delivered: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:33:22 -0500
> X-Airmail-Spooled:   Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:33:22 -0500
>
> Bob,
>
> Just an FYI here....
>
> A friend's daughter is a staffer at the White House
> PIO.  She said that
> emails are virtually worthless--the come in by the
> hundreds of thousands and
> are sometimes deleted en masse if they need space on
> the servers.  A
> well-crafted letter on decent stationary will often
> get more than just a
> cursory glance.  Your note reminded me of this little
> "factoid".
>
> Kyle