Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: JAJZ801@calstate.bitnet
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Response to International Calling Redlining
Message-ID: <13248@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 90 17:06:20 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 69
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 728, Message 8 of 10


 
           [ Insert moderator's tirade here ]  :-)
 
  I think my first statement adequately disclaimed any real legal
expertise. My powdered wig may indeed be all wet. However, if
expertise, legal or otherwise, is a criteria for commenting in the
digest, I think the submission list will have to be cut down to a very
few individuals, from what I have read here.
 
  I think PAT's logic circuit was left on hold :-).
 
  Not every email address, even when published, is designated or
intended as the recipient of very large volumes of communications, any
more than having your phone number in the white or yellow pages
entitles people to overwhelm it with calls and make life miserable for
you or make your phone (system) unavailable for practical use.  Most
of the phone numbers you cite as (counter)examples are intended and
even promoted for such use and the consequential volumes are expected.
The fact that they are often (wo)manned to handle the load indicates
this. This applies also to sending communications to corporations in
general, especially customer service and PUBLIC relations.
 
> And to discuss or explain how a 'crime' is committed on its face
> becomes conspiracy? What lawyer told you that? Therefore television
> shows which run crime dramas should all be indicted as
> co-conspirators, right?
 
  PAT missed the point entirely. IF depriving somebody of the rightful
and reasonable use of their property/service is illegal (there is such
a thing as telephone harassment, but I don't know if there is, either
explicitly or implicitly, an email equivalent - is the medium
critical?)  then a GROUP of people planning to do something WITH SUCH
INTENT is a type of conspiracy. Remember, the original discussions
suggested how neat it would be to overwhelm these people with email
messages.  How would you construe the meaning/intent of that ?
 
  I will not repeat the arguments about the wisdom of civilized and
organized argument as a form of lobbying over mass electronic yelling.
Based upon past moderator's notes, I really expected a more 'moderate'
point of view from PAT. Maybe he had a rough night - there sure was a
deluge of digests to my mailbox. Hmmm, maybe I have an email
harassment case there :-) Oops, I think I invited them by subscribing.
 

Jeff Sicherman
 

[Moderator's Note: I do not think I said it would be 'neat' to
overwhelm anyone with anything. I think a couple names and email
addresses were given saying persons dissatisfied with some aspect of
the service provided by the companies represented by those two
gentlemen could write to them at the addresses provided. It is not
harrassment when you write someone to express an opinion or complaint
to them. Furthermore, I would have *no idea* how many people would be
writing. Maybe everyone but a few people are happy with things the way
they are. There is no deprivation of property involved. Those people
are not being deprived of the use of their email service in any way.
And what makes you think that anyone who would write to either of
those persons would engage in 'electronic yelling'?  And who are you
to define 'electronic yelling'? You are making a lot of presumptions
which are false on their face. Preprinted postcards and individually
written letters flood into the offices of AT&T daily lobbying for one
thing or another. Are those folks depriving anyone of the use of the
mail? Both Mr. Allen and Mr. McGowan receive lots of mail from the
public each day.  Are those men, in your opinion so special, and so
different that they should not have to read an email letter from a
commoner? Your argument is still invalid. Finally, thanks for your
comments about my logic circuits. I really appreciated that.  PAT]