On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 06:55 -0500, Aaron Konstam wrote: > Again no one is insisting anyone should do anything Well, actually the poster was. They were trying to convince LUGs to do something that they weren't doing. Go back and read their original post, and the links that they referred to in it (and the backscatter their postings produced), and also see Mike McCarty's response (I think it was him, I'm doing this by memory). In short, if you think you're going to help disabled people by telling them that you're going to help them, and that you know better about how to help them, you're going to get responses. > So where is the problem in informing people of this need. There is a difference between making information public, and from going on a crusade. The latter is what the original poster was doing. When doing so, you get responses, not all of them what they want to hear. The original poster doesn't seem to understand this. It wasn't a case of their message being "spam", but their political agenda which they don't seem to realise is one. I wasn't the sole voice criticising them, heck look at the websites they provided, lots of people pointed out issues with their approach, but they won't see it. > Now you have been helpfull to people on the list so oyu are probably > an ok guy. Why this request for help for disabled users has sent you > into a rant I don't know. When you (or they) post to a forum, any forum, you get a response. If that wasn't the poster's intention, why post in an interactive forum? They brought up a debate, and got one. If you/they don't like debates/arguments, don't get into one. I don't know the original poster's real background involvement with disability issues, but it cloys with mine. Where someone who thinks that they have *the* answer, but it involves reorganising everyone around them, and often inpractically. I see them doing exactly the same thing. > But one thing I must ask if you are going to send copies of your > opinion to me personally you have to stop using a mailing address that > can't be replied to That one's your fault. If you're going to put your address into the reply-to header, you get a personal reply *and* the list gets the public one automatically, both at the same time. If you don't want personal replies, don't request them in the first place. You've done it again, so you get another. When you put addresses in the reply-to, you get replies to those addresses. They're instructions to do so, not "if you feel like it, do this". -- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
