\RK>From: Rich Kulawiec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RK>Subject: Re: Un$ubscribe Requests
RK>> You are at liberty to do what you believe is
RK>> right for your lists. I you want to argue with brain-dead $ubscribers
RK>> and attempt to train them, be my guest. You may win a few converts.
RK>Do I "want to"? No. I'm a busy person. So I don't "argue", per se.
RK>But I have a larger view than just my few lists, so I try to (as I said)
RK>to educate when possible and punish when necessary in order to solve the
RK>problem (subscriber ignorance) at the place and time when it manifests
RK>itself, instead of taking your approach, which is to bury it under
RK>the carpet and leave it for someone else to deal with.
I think it comes down to what one believes is the real purpose of the
list. Take my "Deathlaw" list, for example. The purpose of the list is
discussion of laws relating to death. I'm sure there are lists that
have as their purpose teaching people how maillist technology works.
But that's -not- the purpose of my list.
Extended debates with folks about how they oughta be doing their own
un$ubscribing doesn't contribute anything to a discussion of the
relationship between death and law. Teaching folks how to use the list,
however laudable, doesn't either. The discussion is -the- purpose of
the list.
I would prefer that the users deal with those mechanisms themselves.
But if doing it for them (from time to time) prevents interference with
the purpose of the list, then that's what I'll do.
If asked nicely, I'll explain. If not, I'd just as soon cut them off
myself.
* SLMR 2.1a * We'll find the good in you yet Angelique... = Pixie
--
>> David B. Smith | Email [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Sysop, American Tune BBS | DISCLAIMER: Hey, I -own- the place!
>> Anyway, my views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's.
>> Host of DEATHLAW Maillist. "Subscribe deathlaw" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
