Subject:
|
Re: member packets (continued)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 02:02:38 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Andy Boal writes:
> I have to point out that I am member 1206, and I was promised that
> packet...
Andy, I'm sorry there has been so much confusion about all of this. A large
part of it is my fault. As of 14 Sep 2000 we intended to remove all mentions
of member packets in the activation emails that go out. However, at that
time, I missed a spot, namely the initial pre-activation emails. The last
reference to the packets wasn't actually removed until 18 Jan 2002, and
according to the system logs, we sent an email to you about your activation
on 3 Aug 2001 and a pre-activation email on 15 Jul 2001. So you would have
seen a mention of a "member packet" in the July 15th email if I'm doing my
archaeology correctly. As soon as we discovered in early 2002 that there
was still one reference remaining (albeit extremely vague) in the emails
going out, we removed that.
Suzanne asked me to remove all references "member packet" in September 2000
in the email we were sending out because she was unable at the time to keep
producing them efficiently, and had fallen hundreds behind. This was during
the few months following our break-up, and our main priorities were getting
our lives reestablished separately. She planned to finish up the member
packets and then we weren't going to do any more beyond that.
So it's my fault that references still existed after September 2000.
Unfortunately, I don't have the lamination machine or the print files to
produce the cards and goodies (nor the time) or I would do more to get us
caught up on these. I think Suzanne did manage to get a few hundred printed
last year and brought a bunch with her to BrickFest, but I'm not positive
about that. Of course, you're still waiting on yours, and that's the bottom
line.
> It would have been nice to have received notification of this via the
> lugnet e-mail database. A simple e-mail message to all members advising
> that unfortunately no more member packets would be mailed out (allowing
> for those, who like me, weren't subscribed to the lugnet newsgroups) would
> have saved me a lot of hassle.
You're absolutely right -- and I wish we had thought of doing this. We did
send out a mail on 14 Sep 2000 to all members who hadn't yet received a
packet, but not in Jan 2002 unfortunately.
> One element is that at law, you are technically in breach of contract, as
> the member packet was promised as part of the legal consideration for our
> membership fees.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't respond to this, but I believe Suzanne still
intends to get the backlog caught up for everyone who is still due a packet.
I'll see what I can find out. If we're going to be unable to meet our
promises on these, we'll contact people and let them know and ask them what
they'd like us to do to compensate.
> One final thing. I now have the answer I wanted in some e-mails I sent a
> few weeks ago. However, I have to say that it is at best rude not to even
> acknowledge e-mails concerning lugnet, which in my experience is exactly
> what has happened several times. While I appreciate how busy you guys
> are, it is not satisfactory in the slightest.
I agree, and I appreciate your candidness. Neither of us consciously ignore
e-mail, but being too busy to answer all of it isn't a fair excuse for not
responding in a reasonable timeframe. I'm not sure what the best solution
is, but I agree that it is a problem.
> I was very seriously considering asking for my membership fee to be
> returned, not because of the failure to send my member packet, but because
> of the failure to deal with lugnet business. Perhaps someone could check
> the feedback@lugnet.com e-mail account, or Todd and Suzanne could check
> their respective e-mail accounts and answer my e-mail sometime.
Again, your candidness is appreciated, and I want to acknowledge your feelings
of disillusionment. You do matter to us, and we care about you and your
experiences here. I want to reassure you that it's not that we don't care,
but that we're still adjusting to leading separate lives (even a year and a
half later) and consequently there are a lot of things we aren't as good at
as we once were. I'm taking basically a long and much-needed break from
heavy-duty activities and probably won't get back into the full swing of
things for another year yet. I look forward to that, but spiritually I'm
not ready for that just yet. In the meantime (since the summer of 2000)
we've brought a few people in more closely who have been very very helpful
with technical and data entry matters, but I think we've missed some
opportunities to delegate additional responsibilities. Suzanne's and Jim's
wedding was last fall and I believe they have just bought a house and need
to move soon. It seems possible that communication might get a little bit
worse before it starts getting better but I'll see what I can do about us
finding help for answering our email feeds.
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: member packets (continued)
|
| "LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> wrote in news:Gq3r6t.9yF@lugnet.com: (...) I have to point out that I am member 1206, and I was promised that packet... (...) It would have been nice to have received notification of this via the lugnet e-mail (...) (22 years ago, 31-Jan-03, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
