Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pegasus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!hogpc!pegasus!avi
From: avi@pegasus.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Let me know... ANONIMITY in POLLS
Message-ID: <830@pegasus.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:34:54 EST
Article-I.D.: pegasus.830
Posted: Thu Dec 15 01:34:54 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Dec-83 01:16:05 EST
References: <352@sii.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 37

I am going to throw in my 12 cents worth (inflation?) about whether Cindy
Paloma should post "who has not answered her poll." For the record, I did
answer after waiting a few weeks and have not received any acknowledgement
from Cindy that my long reply was received.

I did a poll on "Article lengths" in net.religion several months ago when a
set of cascading articles and responses went over 700 lines. I received many
replies and made a point of acknowledging them all, often with Carbon Copies
along multiple alternate paths. When I posted the results, I began by
acknowledging the people who had answered, by printing their names in random
order (leaving out anyone who asked to be truly anonymous.) Sure enough, I
started getting mail from people (and comments in articles on the net) that
their submission had obviously not been received.

The moral of the story is (surprise!!!) that mail is quite unreliable. I
ould not be surprised if Cindy did not get my answer. I also sent two
letters to Valerie "the Lady" Polichar on the same machine, and have not
received her usual irreverant answer. I will resubmit the copy that I always
keep. I think Cindy may want to publish the names of the people who HAVE
sent her answers AND who have agreed to allow their names to appear. This
will allow others (who have not replied, or have obviously not gotten through)
to send (again) -- if they want to. Publishing the names of people who have
NOT ANSWERED seems to be an invasion of their privacy. We did not ask to be
on her mailing list. In her list of questions, she asked about whether
people would post more if they had some anonimity. This is an example where
some of us (not including myself) might want anonimity. After all, if it got
out that we actually answer these polls, we might start getting more
junk-mail.

Why is this on net.singles, anyway? Similar discussions have occurred
elsewhere. Maybe it is time for a net.polls.

	Still single, but involved these days,
		
-- 
-=> Avi E. Gross @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6241
 suggested paths: [ihnp4, allegra, cbosg, utcsstat, hogpc, ...]!pegasus!avi