Paul, again, rules are rules. The post, no matter how well intentioned and how worthwhile, WAS OFF-TOPIC. As a good example of what such off-topic posting does, look at the number of responses/replies posted here in the past few days! Rootsweb/Ancestry makes the rules; managers are expected to enforce the rules, which includes manually unsubscribing anyone who SPAMS a List. Don't argue with me about this -- don't criticize me, nor try to second-guess me. SUBJECT CLOSED !!!!! Discussion of this thread is now OFF-TOPIC. Let's let it die, and get back to the real purpose of the List. Regards, George W. Durman CFT-WIN Mailing List Manager At 26-06-05 03:42 PM Sunday, Paul and Barbara Barrett wrote: *********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* >I am sorry but once again I have to take issue with you. > >You say this use of the mailing constitutes spam. Spam is defined as >unsolicited bulk eMail and by subscribing to your list, each and >everyone of >us has signed up for bulk, unsolicited eMail. Tacitly we have >agreed to be >spammed. OK, we signed up to a genealogy mailing list so our >expectation is >that the messages we receive should relate to that topic, and >anything that >is off topic should be regarded as spam. But the mail we received DID >relate to that topic so maybe we should only consider it spam if it had a >commercial aim. But it was not an attempt to sell us anything; it was an >academic enquiry. Spam also typically originates from spoofed addresses - >this one was from a genuine address. Let us just remember this was a >genuine enquiry from a student doing research into genealogy tools. >Perfectly on topic as far as I can see. I think that if we were to award >marks for 'spam-ness' then the originator at worst scores 5%, due to the >poor way the request was initially posted. > >The responses I saw from the other members of the mailing list were >enquiries about the status of the enquirer or positive replies. The >credentials of the originator were easy to establish and I did >so. I do not >recall seeing much, if any, complaint. > >So let's now consider the mailing list manager's response. The originator >has been forcibly unsubscribed from the mailing list. I believe that >response is disproportionate. It disappoints me that someone's >educational >studies can be hampered by censorship. An alternative name for a mailing >list manager is 'moderator,' a word which has an obvious root. Moderation >seems to have been in short supply in this case. > >Is it right to say, you can do what you wish but I disagree with you >all and >so as manager of the list I will enforce MY opinion by forcing the >subscriber off the forum. > >If that is the kind of forum you want to create, fine, but then >you'd better >remove me too, because it's not the kind of behaviour I want to be >associated with. > >Regards > > > >Paul Barrett > >-----Original Message----- >From: CFT-WIN List Manager [mailto:GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net] >Sent: 25 June 2005 09:00 >To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [CFTW] questionnaire of internet genealogy users >requirement survey > > >Folks, you can do as you wish, but I caution you to NOT respond to >this type of request. > >First of all, this person has made a list of Mailing Lists and has >probably sent his request to each List, after first subscribing to >the Lists. These Mailing Lists at Rootsweb were not intended for >such purposes. (It's called SPAMMING!) > >Regards, >George W. Durman >CFT-WIN Mailing List Manager > >At 13-06-05 11:41 AM Monday, Juan Du wrote: >*********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* > >Juan Du > > > >C/O Jeff Jones > > > >IMC, WMG > > > >University of Warwick > > > >CV4 7AL > > > >jdujojo@yahoo.co.uk > > > >Dear user: > > > >As part of my Masters degree in Electronic Business Management at > >Warwick University I am undertaking a study of the use of the > >internet for genealogical purposes. The purpose of this study is to > >identify the way in which genealogical internet sites make money and > >to understand the customer base. > > > >To facilitate this study you are invited to participate in an email > >survey questionnaire which is designed to investigate the user > >requirements for internet genealogy such as searching for ancestor > >history data, finding people, creating your family website and > >designing a family tree. In this survey, there are 20 questions and > >it will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. > > > >Your participation in this survey is voluntary but would be > >appreciated. If you take part and provide a contact email address a > >copy of the analysis of the survey will be sent to you upon > >completion. If at any time you feel uncomfortable answering any of > >the questions then please just ignore it and carry on with the next > >question. > >(snip) >**********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** > > >==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== >You can contact the List Manager at: >CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com > > > > > >==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== >To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: > CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) > CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) >Subject: unsubscribe >In the body include only one word: unsubscribe >(Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command) **********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT***********

[quote] Don't argue with me about this -- don't criticize me, nor try to second-guess me. SUBJECT CLOSED !!!!! Regards, George W. Durman CFT-WIN Mailing List Manager [unquote So, to your unwillingness to entertain open discussion on a topic that is clearly relevant, you now add a large measure of breathtaking arrogance. Ira, I will not be treated in this way by this arrogant idiot. I will leave this forum forthwith and I will look for an alternative piece of software. Shame; CFT is a great piece of software - but association with extremists is not something that stands it in good stead. At 26-06-05 03:42 PM Sunday, Paul and Barbara Barrett wrote: *********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* >I am sorry but once again I have to take issue with you. > >You say this use of the mailing constitutes spam. Spam is defined as >unsolicited bulk eMail and by subscribing to your list, each and >everyone of >us has signed up for bulk, unsolicited eMail. Tacitly we have >agreed to be >spammed. OK, we signed up to a genealogy mailing list so our >expectation is >that the messages we receive should relate to that topic, and >anything that >is off topic should be regarded as spam. But the mail we received DID >relate to that topic so maybe we should only consider it spam if it had a >commercial aim. But it was not an attempt to sell us anything; it was an >academic enquiry. Spam also typically originates from spoofed addresses - >this one was from a genuine address. Let us just remember this was a >genuine enquiry from a student doing research into genealogy tools. >Perfectly on topic as far as I can see. I think that if we were to award >marks for 'spam-ness' then the originator at worst scores 5%, due to the >poor way the request was initially posted. > >The responses I saw from the other members of the mailing list were >enquiries about the status of the enquirer or positive replies. The >credentials of the originator were easy to establish and I did >so. I do not >recall seeing much, if any, complaint. > >So let's now consider the mailing list manager's response. The originator >has been forcibly unsubscribed from the mailing list. I believe that >response is disproportionate. It disappoints me that someone's >educational >studies can be hampered by censorship. An alternative name for a mailing >list manager is 'moderator,' a word which has an obvious root. Moderation >seems to have been in short supply in this case. > >Is it right to say, you can do what you wish but I disagree with you >all and >so as manager of the list I will enforce MY opinion by forcing the >subscriber off the forum. > >If that is the kind of forum you want to create, fine, but then >you'd better >remove me too, because it's not the kind of behaviour I want to be >associated with. > >Regards > > > >Paul Barrett > >-----Original Message----- >From: CFT-WIN List Manager [mailto:GeorgeWDurman@comcast.net] >Sent: 25 June 2005 09:00 >To: CFT-WIN-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: Re: [CFTW] questionnaire of internet genealogy users >requirement survey > > >Folks, you can do as you wish, but I caution you to NOT respond to >this type of request. > >First of all, this person has made a list of Mailing Lists and has >probably sent his request to each List, after first subscribing to >the Lists. These Mailing Lists at Rootsweb were not intended for >such purposes. (It's called SPAMMING!) > >Regards, >George W. Durman >CFT-WIN Mailing List Manager > >At 13-06-05 11:41 AM Monday, Juan Du wrote: >*********START OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT********* > >Juan Du > > > >C/O Jeff Jones > > > >IMC, WMG > > > >University of Warwick > > > >CV4 7AL > > > >jdujojo@yahoo.co.uk > > > >Dear user: > > > >As part of my Masters degree in Electronic Business Management at > >Warwick University I am undertaking a study of the use of the > >internet for genealogical purposes. The purpose of this study is to > >identify the way in which genealogical internet sites make money and > >to understand the customer base. > > > >To facilitate this study you are invited to participate in an email > >survey questionnaire which is designed to investigate the user > >requirements for internet genealogy such as searching for ancestor > >history data, finding people, creating your family website and > >designing a family tree. In this survey, there are 20 questions and > >it will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. > > > >Your participation in this survey is voluntary but would be > >appreciated. If you take part and provide a contact email address a > >copy of the analysis of the survey will be sent to you upon > >completion. If at any time you feel uncomfortable answering any of > >the questions then please just ignore it and carry on with the next > >question. > >(snip) >**********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** > > >==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== >You can contact the List Manager at: >CFT-WIN-admin@rootsweb.com > > > > > >==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== >To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: > CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) > CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) >Subject: unsubscribe >In the body include only one word: unsubscribe >(Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command) **********END OF ORIGINAL MESSAGE TEXT*********** ==== CFT-WIN Mailing List ==== To unsubscribe from CFT-WIN, send an e-mail message to: CFT-WIN-L-request@rootsweb.com (for individual messages) CFT-WIN-D-request@rootsweb.com (for Digest mode) Subject: unsubscribe In the body include only one word: unsubscribe (Turn OFF your signature file when sending this command)