On Thursday, 12 December, Sheree.Wegeng@carle.com wrote:
>>[...] The point is that the majority are being punished for
>>the mistakes of a few. Suppose that you have been autocrossing(rallying,
>>whatever) with a certain club. You show up one weekend, and they say " Sorry,
>>we don't allow any MGs to run here anymore. There was a guy here with an MG
>>last weekend, and it put down oil all over the course. Took us forever to
>>clean up-what a mess. We just don't allow MGs anymore, they're too messy. You
>>can work the course for us, though, and help us pick up cones."
And Mike Leckstein responds:
>The analogy doesn't work. A better anology would be, if the subject
>make of vehicle had a built in design problem, ie the oil lines are
>poorly manufactured or faulty design on all such vehicles of that
>make. Even though each racer with that make car claimed to take extra
>precaution by inspecting the lines before each race, the fact is that
>the make is prone to this failure, and a higher proportion of this
>make vehicle fails then the rest of the field. Thus the track must ban
>this type of vehicle. The AOL service and limitation on the mail box
>content is the factor that as a whole causes the higher degree of
>bounced mail. The individual subscriber although diligent, suffers
>from the short commings of his provider, not his own failing. Mark is
>not blamming any individual, but is trying to limit this overall mess
>that occurs in higher proportion on AOL.
Well, in truth neither analogy is correct. Moving the AOL folks to the
digest was, in terms of this analogy, just saying "Please park over there
with the other leaky cars for this event, so when you all leave I won't run
myself ragged trying to clean up spots scattered all over." I imagine the
majority of complaints were from the folks who basically couldn't find reverse
to back out of their current spot and park where requested.
Where did people get the idea that AOL folks could no longer read the mail
or post to the lists?
mjb.
|