💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › conspiracy › CN › cn07-09.txt captured on 2020-10-31 at 22:57:24.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 7 Num. 09
======================================
("Quid coniuratio est?")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE WOES OF AN EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
==============================
In Which The CN Editor Feels Sorry For Himself
----------------------------------------------
"Hey, I don't read this CN just to here you whine, Mr. big-shot
Editor-in-Chief! How about just sticking to the news from now on,
huh?"
This may be one of the e-mail messages I will receive in response
to this latest issue of Conspiracy Nation (CN). For in this issue
I will describe some of the woes I go through.
For starters, this morning I logged on and was informed that I
had 133 messages in my mailbox. That is 133 messages that I have
to read and respond to in just 1 day.
I average about 100 new e-mail messages per day. But here I will
introduce a sort of character we get in the conspiratologist
community: the side-walking sharp-eyed hawkcrab. This crustacean
sees "one step beyond": "Yeah sure it's very nice and all how
Redman does this news service. But see how sharp-eyed *I* am: I
raise the further question, 'Just what do we really know about
this Redman fellow?' He says he gets about 100 new e-mail
messages per day. But are you telling me that he has to answer
all that e-mail every day? Why that would mean he has to spend at
least an *hour* *a* *day* doing just that! (You see, I am a bit
more sharp-eyed than my dumb looks would lead you to believe.)"
One example of the type e-mail I often get is the "I'm so angry
that I am cancelling CN" message. Currently, when you subscribe,
you get a message welcoming you and telling you how to cancel
should you so wish. I even have in the welcome message that
there's no need to tell me that you are cancelling. I furthermore
let new subscribers know that if they need to cancel, that is
O.K. I'm glad to have you aboard, but I understand that, for
whatever reason, you may decide to cancel. I point out that the
material is controversial and you may be quite upset by what you
read. I say that there's no need to send *me* a "please cancel"
message in which you say how angry you are about the latest CN
and that you're just gonna show me and cancel. But every day I
get messages saying to cancel. How is it that these people are
able to follow the instructions and send their subscription
request to the listproc, yet their cancels they send to me?
In case anyone is interested, I have a file all set up explaining
the proper way to cancel. So, when these tedious "I'm so angry
I'm cancelling" messages come my way, I don't need to type in an
individual response; I just load the pre-written message and send
it back to them.
Another common message I have to wade through each day is what I
call the "bounce back" message. That happens when someone
subscribes and then, for whatever reason, their subscribing
address ceases to exist. Then I get quite arcane and long
messages saying that such and such address doesn't exist. I have
to wade through all the esoteric computerese, searching for just
what *is* the address I am supposed to cancel. After deciphering
the computerese, I send a cryptic message to the listproc which
is supposed to cancel the address. *But*, there are some
addresses that I keep cancelling and they keep popping back up.
So that next day I'll get another message saying that such and
such address does not exist and that I should not send e-mail
there. So I'll cancel it again and next day it will still be
there, even after the listproc had confirmed it was cancelled!
Other type messages are bounce backs saying that delivery is
"deferred". Other bounce backs say that the address doesn't
exist, but they don't tell me what the address is! So how can I
cancel it?
I know you may be saying that I should just implement the auto-
delete function. But the trouble is that for technical reasons
Cornell does not support it. So I *must* spend an hour a day just
deciphering bounce backs. So why don't I just switch to a
different listproc? The answer is that a good listproc, one that
I pay for, costs money. If just 1 person in 5 of CN readers would
cough up the $20 to subscribe to the CN Newsletter, that might be
do-able. As it now stands, many readers able to afford a computer
still cannot come up with $20 to help this news service stay
afloat. I understand that times are hard, you may be poor,
etcetera -- but I cannot get just 1 out of 5 persons to subscribe
to the monthly newsletter. So that is another part of my day,
handling the bounce backs.
Here's another common message I get: the "should" message. Lately
certain critics have been indulging their leisure by sending me
unsought advice on what I "should" be covering in CN. Here's a
clue for such persons, how I react to the word "should": There
was this fellow named Fritz Perls who was somewhat popular during
the late 1960s and early 1970s. I know that a lot of
psychiatrists/psychologists are just part of the tools used by
the oppressive state and/or a lot of them are full of it. I know
that. Still, there are a few whose work I admire. Fritz Perls is
one of them. He authored a book published as *Gestalt Therapy
Verbatim* in which he vocalized some of his ideas. One thing he
said was that the word "should" was the *one* "dirty word" in the
English language. "Watch out when you hear the word 'should.'"
Another way to put it is to watch out when people try to "should"
on you. So this may give certain critics a clue as to my own
personal reaction to their messages wherein they use the "should"
word.
I also have to deal with legal issues. Big "news" outfits like
the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., have lawyers on their
staff with whom they can consult before going to press. I, on the
other hand, have got to be not only the editor but also the legal
department. So I have got to try to figure out just what I am
allowed to say without risk of lawsuit. One good example is when
I had interviewed Debra von Trapp and *she* said something about
Chip Berlet that he didn't like. And then Berlet demanded that