- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Chris Daft: "DragonDictate's future"
- Previous message: Susan Fulton: "Re: 21st Century bruhaha end?"
this thread.
Susan Fulton wrote:
>
> I agree emphatically with Martin on this issue. This list "Belongs" to the
> people who participate in it. 21st Century already gets plenty of benefit
> from being host to the list. As an employee of a news organization, I also
> have to think twice about anything that can in any way be construed as an
> endorsement. I personally object as well. Susan Fulton.
>
> At 05:45 AM 3/12/98 -0800, Martin Tibor wrote:
> >21st has been active in letting resellers know if they believe that they
> >are SPAMING the list. It was understood that the basis of this list was to
> >be collaborative. There was considerable concern that the outcome of the
> >list being taken over by a vendor was going to a change the way the list
> >would be handled. I for one object that my comments are being used to sell
> >products for 21st. 21st is hosting this list but is not their list IMHO.
/snip/
Woops, as you probably perceived, Susan, I got your second message
before your first was received. Ok, now its 4 to 1 against my
positions.
I agree that "this" list -- defined as the participants and the
discussion they produce -- "belongs" to the people who participate in
it. If they wish to, they can vanish in an instant and start sending
their messages to a different list server.
However, "the list" as defined by the distribution file and the server
software is actually "owned" by the person or entity which maintains it
on its own equipment or that which it rents. Just as, I assume, your
employer owns the e-mail account you post with which bears its domain
name. But I don't figure the nytimes or you are really worried about it
being construed as endorsing your views in these posts, or it would
require you to have a signature line disclaimer (as some employers do)
or you would volunteer a disclaimer in your sig (just to be careful).
Do the callers on a talk show own the program. No, but there wouldn't
be a program if they didn't call in. Now, granted, 21st didn't start
the list. But somebody did and did the grunt work of maintaining it.
In this case, the owner of voicerecognition.com obviously realizes the
reality of the first definition, has stayed out of this debate (except
to send a conciliatory message directed to the complainers), and
probably does not really appreciate the way I have responded on this
issue (don't know, haven't heard from him).
I guess I see one thing when I look at the archived page, you four see
another. I can't see how anyone by any stretch of the imagination would
think those logos on each archive page could be construed as signifying
an endorsement by each poster.
An early message pointed out that I run a list and that it is not, in my
opinion, very difficult to start one up. But it is a pain to
administer. In fact, I mentioned three companies which host lists and
intended to suggest that someone like George, Martin (and, given his
slow isp, Enrique) could certainly use one -- and the posters could post
wherever they wanted to. George already has a moderated bulletin board
on his website; he posts your message if he decides to. That's ok.
I'm sorry, but I just think y'all are just overreacting, notwithstanding
the assumption I share with you that 21st wouldn't be doing it if it
didn't feel it weren't getting something out of it. I just think that
the complaints which have been articulated have been an inaccurate,
unwarranted exaggeration of what has actually occured. Oh, I forgot,
I'm not alone. I think someone called it a tempest in a teapot.
Susan wrote in her post #3 of this thread:
> I don't know whether the topic is fully covered or not; I wouldn't
> presume to know. And "minority" in this case is based on the fact that
> the list owner has the deciding votes. All of them. Susan
I disagree. You've got a great website. You can host a list today if
you want to. I'd be glad to show you how. But you will have to
administer it and decide how it's going to get paid for. Probably $25
per month for 200 subscribers at Lsoft. If you did, I would certainly
subscribe if it's free; I would have to ponder it if a paid subscription
were involved. You also have to listen the the complaints.
The list owner here (for whom I do not speak) CAN do what he wants, but
he certainly seems to pay attention to the complainers. And he hasn't
told anyone to "shut up" that I've heard. Similarly, as you pointed out
in post #1, those who post can choose to post somewhere else if they
find someone who meets their needs better. I'm done!
Alan
