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