Trisha Cummings <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Bob,
> I think this may be a possibility and I had it
> noted for a future bring up along with a couple of other list
> admin things I was going to mention. I guess now is a goodtime.
> 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".
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.
> 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!!
> - I need to go back check to make sure they sneak on - also
> Randy - of OUR-KIDS and ummmm is I think the administrator for
> SJUowner list
Yes, Randy administrates SJUowner (among other lists he handles),
he is sometimes right - remember the cockup in deleteing me
> - had some coding to add to keep this from
> happening - Deri - did you add it? - or do we need to discuss
No, this list is "open" to any individual, company (or robot!!!).
> Also - recently something called shoutmail has discussed - I
> wanted to discuss with Betty and Deri ( Dan - I am sorry - you
> chime in too! I know you are busy - I am not overlooking you!!)
> I am posting what Randy posted to OUR-KIDS here. I would like
> to take the same stance.
> > ""Re: [OK] ADMIN: Shoutmail and other voice services
> > The Shoutmail message notifications broke new ground in how
> > users interact with Email lists. A couple of other services
> > are just starting to come up with the same kind of services,
> > I think Yahoo is one of them.
> > I consulted with numerous other list owners regarding this
> > issue, though this list is among the first to get such
> > messages, so there isn't much precedence set yet.
> > The reason for this message is to formulate policy on how
> > users interact with the Our-Kids Email list and set the
> > precedence.
> > I've decided to not allow my lists to distribute shoutmail or
> > other media message notifications for the following reasons:
> > The message as sent to the list does not reflect a subject
> > and the content of the message is nothing more than a big
> > notification as to how to go about retrieving the message.
> > The notification in and of itself does not constitute
> > anything meaningful to the list, membership or archives and
> > since historically an email list has been a means of
> > distributing written communications, here exist no clear way
> > to determine the subject matter and relevance of such
> > notifications.
> > On a busy list, particularly covering as broad a spectrum of
> > topics as we do, many people don't have the time to read each
> > message verbatim as it is, and they have subjects to help
> > them. Let alone weed through shoutmail messages for pertinent
> > messages of interest. Personally, I'd use a telephone and
> > conference calling if I was interested in communicating that
> > way.
> > 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.
> > I am told that shoutmail does have an option to send a text
> > message. I guess now I'll it's time to rework the policies to
> > reflect "written" only communication.
> > The reason for sending this post now is just to get it on
> > record.
> > Randy, Our-Kids Administrator""
> I respect Randy's list admistrations skills and smarts. While I
> am fledgling at this - I look to Randy for help and guidence -
> Thanks for being patient with me - Randy!!
> Brightest Blessings
Again I have to disagree with Randy's post, particularly with
regard to this list. Since most posters on this list have motor
control problems, the opportunity to use technology to
communicate in other ways should not be "banned", particularly
for those with single figure "words per minute" typing speed. If
they have an understandable voice then I think Shoutmail are
offering a valuable service - remember the speech dictation
programs all cost money.
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Hester <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Saturday, March 18, 2000 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: People For Paulsen Campaign - Paulsen is going on record as
> being in favor of the proposed school district referendum
> > I think we're being SPAMmed - by a supposed disability group!
> > Well, here goes another filter.
> >At 09:54 PM 3/15/00 -0500, you wrote: