I am going to make one more public comment about the current furore over the
"relevance" of messages and, in the words of Allan Benson, the "relevance
relationship" of certain members. I will then determine whether I, too,
will unsubscribe.
I have responded privately to Andrew Taylor, Allan Benson and several others
so I won't repeat all that again.
What I have just done is to delve a little deeper into the statistics(?)
released by Andrew. As Andrew says, this list is of "raw" messages only and
does not take relevance into account although, according to Allan Benson,
more messages means less relevance.
I did not look at relevance either but looked carefully at the addresses of
the senders. About a quarter of the "top 100" have their email services
provided by a government department, agency, educational institution or a
business. These are only the ones I can see easily. There are bound to be
more than this. In other words, these subscribers do not pay for their
email usage.
Prior to my retirement, and still in my wife's government job, it is
certainly frowned upon, if not a punishable offence, to use the provided IT
services for private use. I realise that some departments and businesses
have a more enlightened attitude but ..... As taxpayers, we are paying for
these users (all of them as money filters through to all businesses as tax
deductions, etc) to be using this net.
Some of these subscribers then pontificate about what should and should not
appear. If they want to do this, let them at least pay their way.
Terry Pacey
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
