Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: PMW1@psuvm.psu.edu (Peter M. Weiss) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining Message-ID: <13129@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 7 Oct 90 13:50:28 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Organization: Penn State University Lines: 35 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 719, Message 5 of 8 In article <13083@accuvax.nwu.edu>, 0004133373@mcimail.com (Donald E. Kimberlin) says: >No further should need to be said in view of what Digest readers have >demonstrated from the past, except to say that this may mark an >innovative way for top execs to hear from the public. >[Moderator's Note: (etc.) >The second address would be written '0001090242@mcimail.com'. Whether >or not either of these gentlemen read their email direct or have it >scanned and printed out for them is not known. We shall see what >happens and post the responses received. PAT] My opinion is that the readership NOT deluge those addresses with mail. I would suggest that spokesfolks from the list e.g., our Moderator be assigned that task. It would be a shame if so much noise were generated that this channel of communication were cutoff. Peter M. Weiss | pmw1@psuvm or @vm.psu.edu 31 Shields Bldg (the AIS people) | not affiliated with PSUVM | VM.PSU.EDU University Park, PA USA 16802 [Moderator's Note: I'm not quite sure I understand your claim. Is it 'noise' if you do not agree with the letter-writer? If Mr. McGowan suddenly began refusing to read/answer his mail personally, would that be a big loss? Can you explain further? You are not suggesting that either MCI Mail or ATT Mail would deliberatly cut the connection and reduce their email universe as a result of a few letters sent through which were (in your estimation) 'noise' are you? PAT]