In the immortal words of Dr. Manion:
> On 30 Jan 97 ,Brad Knowles insightfully wrote:
> > At 12:47 PM -0500 1/23/1997, Rich Kulawiec wrote:
> >
> > >And the point is, Anne, that AOL has behaved like an unruly leech on the
> > >back on the Internet community since the day it was plugged in. AOL does
> > >not give, it only takes.
> >
> > AOL does give back to the 'net, and in fact has a program *named*
> > "Give Back to the 'Net", and anyone (whether they work for AOL or
> > not) can give recommendations to this program.
> Again, to the benefit of AOL rather than to the people. Brad, you
> seem to waste a lot of resources telling us how grateful we should
> all be because AOL exists. This is simply the illusion of gradeaur on
> your part and on AOL's part.
> This "give back" is great to help AOL but exactly how does it help
> anyone else? Your "give back" program is more "help me because I
> don't know what I'm doing."
> > In fact, there have
> > been times when we've tried to give large sums of money to the
> > authors of certain pieces of software, when it turned out that those
> > authors didn't want money, but instead wanted something we weren't in
> > a position to provide.
> Is this meant to impress us? That they were willing to give money?
> Again, this is something that benefits AOL, doesn't benefit the Net.
> > Trust me, we give back to the 'net *big
> > time*, every single day.
> Sorry, I haven't seen any of this. I've been on the Internet for more
> than two years. I have yet to see anything positive coming from AOL.
> Besides offering of money to individuals for code or software that
> would benefit AOL, you seem to be at a loss to give any examples
> which do not directly benefit AOL.
> > I'm sorry guy, if you want to rant and rave, go to alt.aol-sucks.
> > Let's keep the conversations on this list to *useful* ones.
> Just because *you* don't believe the conversation is "useful"
> doesn't mean that no one else does, either. Apparently there are a
> few who do. The email you have answered in response to AOL was not
> meant as a "bashing" as you say. It was a statement of fact, no
> matter how hard you try to twist the words.
> As listowners we are trying to find a way to deal with AOL and the
> problems it causes. Their tying up of resources due to bounced
> messages, AOL allowing their subscribers to arbitrarily turn off
> email, AOL not giving their subscribers some basics about the
> Internet and how to subscribe and unsubscribe, AOL not responding to
> messages from Net users about spams sent by AOL and the list goes on
> and on.
> This list is not about AOL bashing. But, these are problems many of
> us are having and we must deal with. I'm sorry if AOL doesn't benefit
> from this discussion. From your email, I gather that AOL intends to
> remain part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
> Leonard
> >
> >
> >
--
Don't blame me -- I voted for the Unabomber!
Nathan J. Mehl -- The Left Bank Operation
(work) nmehl@leftbank.com -- http://www.leftbank.com
(play) memory@blank.org -- http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nmehl/
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
