On 11 Jul 2000, 16:24, Adam Bailey wrote:
> AOL is the single largest access provider in the world. There are more
> AOL members than several of its nearest competitors combined.
But not larger than all the rest combined. And I submit "large" is not
an excuse for all ills caused by the "large" entity.
> I join in complaining when AOL does something that I don't approve
> of, but I also realize that sometimes you have to work around it --
> especially if you are providing a service that you want to be
> successful.
Yes. Work around it, but don't be lead or controlled by it. As
administrators and listowners, you have to go by what you think is
right, even if it disagrees with AOL policy.
> You are welcome to argue "AOL sucks" all day,
I argued no such thing. My argument was that AOL should look for
better solutions that would not be so detrimental to Internet interests.
> and I won't waste my time debating it.
Please don't. It was never brought up. Everything I wrote could very
well be applied to any provider.
> But some list owners simply don't have a choice but to deal
> with what may comprise between 5-15% (or more) of their subscribership.
I can relate to that. At one time I owned a mailing list made up
primarily of Juno subscribers. We had several services we offered the
Juno users, but in managing the list itself, I did very little
compromising to my subscribers. As far as list administration went,
they all got equal treatment. That was a majordomo and I pretty much
did things as per my usual practice.
> That's why I believe solutions are more useful than complaints, beyond
> the therapeutic value of such.
I believe the solution will follow the complaints. The squeaky wheel
always gets the grease, first.
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
