Subject:
|
Re: member packets (puleeze!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:54:48 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
891 times
|
| |
|
|
I get that some folks are embittered about not getting member pack thingies,
and when we raise expectations about stuff and then do not deliver
gloriously, unfortunateness must ensue. But I'm reading this and its just
seems a bit strange...
In lugnet.admin.general, Andy Boal writes:
> "LUGNET Admin" <suz@lugnet.com> wrote in news:Gq3r6t.9yF@lugnet.com:
>
> > Info online about membership and the conf e-mail should not have had any
> > promises on there related to packets beyond the first ?650 members or
> > so.. Todd had expected us to switch to a simpler single-sheet-of-paper
> > kinda thing saying thanks and giving a typed password for safe keeping.
> > [Oh yeah, forgot to mention that each folder was fed through printer to
> > get its unique password, then matched to its member card and mailing
> > label]
>
>
> I have to point out that I am member 1206, and I was promised that
> packet...
>
> > I'll make sure we update all language for future members. I am sorry for
> > it having given such false expectations to those who already signed up.
> > It was not meant to be deceptive. If anyone sent their $10 in hopes to
> > get nifty LEGO stuff in the mail, and is now unsatisfied, please let me
> > know privately.
>
> 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.
One might have thought that another way to save oneself a lot of hassle is
to just not be hassled. I fully appreciate that the primary reason for your
paying your hard earned was not to support Lugnet (hell, you can get that
for free, can't you!) but to get your hands on the glorious member pack
thingie, and that without it, severe hassling might seem like the only
possible consequence, but its just not true.
One can try to hold Lugnet to a commercial standard of conduct (although we
should probably pay commercial subscriptions, no?) and get all hassled when
Lugnet fails to measure up, or we can decide to be pleased as punch and
enjoy the wonder of what is already here, and be even more thrilled when
something new turns up. We could even sling them some dough to help with
the bills!
To ordinary non-Christian, non-Civil Servant me, it just sooooooo makes
sense. The lack of balance is just breathtaking!
> 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.
Goodness gracious! Give this dude back his money. I don't know how many
thousands of GBP he has paid on his end of this contract, but if this is
just the US$10 thingie, I'm happy to pay him back myself!
If we need lawyers its to have them look at this contract to see whether it
is not simply manifestly unfair to Lugnet. Maybe we could have the court
reconstruct it more sensibly, or at the very least set it aside to enable
the parties to think again about what they get for what the provide.
> > I truly am sorry. I feel pretty stupid about dropping that ball. What
> > started out as a typical goof-up where I thought I could do a lot more
> > than I really could, became worse because I didn't admit it when I
> > should have.
>
>
> One final thing. I now have the answer I wanted in some e-mails I sent a
> few weeks ago.
Excellent. That would probably be that then?
> 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.
At best its an earnest mistake by hardworking just about volunteer types,
compounded by their enthusiasm for setting it right, and their shame at not
being all they could be.
At worst its rude.
> While I appreciate how busy you guys are, it is not satisfactory in the
> slightest.
>
> I was very seriously considering asking for my membership fee to be
> returned
<<waves currency in the air>>
> not because of the failure to send my member packet, but because
> of the failure to deal with lugnet business.
I love this bit! 'failure to deal with business' Check out...
http://www.asboal.clara.net/faith.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/friends.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/music.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/madness.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/tec.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/alpha.html
http://www.asboal.clara.net/contact.html
You might have thought that someone a bit overwhelmed by the task of running
a 10 page website might have some understanding of the work to maintain a
website like Lugnet. Or not...
> Perhaps someone could check
> the feedback@lugnet.com e-mail account,
Maybe its changed - I thought that the feeback page essentially said 'this
is the wrong place if you want a reply'. You be the judge:
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/feedback/
> or Todd and Suzanne could check
> their respective e-mail accounts and answer my e-mail sometime.
>
>
> Andy
I'll see if I can track down Andy's addy and send him some cash...
>
>
> --
> Andrew Boal ................................... e-mail:
> andy@andyboal.co.uk
> Christian, Civil Servant, and not-so-much net addict from Bangor, N
> Ireland
> Thought for the day?.. PCs running Windoze are crap, but I have to use
> them
> Telephone: +44 7968 164 784 . ICQ 59455960 . www:
> http://www.andyboal.co.uk
All proudly brought to you by a Christian Civil Servant with thoughts of the
day to share.
The self restraint energy I am applying in order to stop now could power a
small city for a year.
;-)
Richard
Still baldly going...
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
