rex!engr.uky.edu!morgan (Wes Morgan) writes:
> I'm not arguing that AOL is lickety-split in answering queries.
> Since neither of us knows the division of responsibilities at
> AOL, it seemed quite likely that different problems are routed
> to different people. Let's address that issue without flaming
> the one person from AOL who has taken the time to join online
> forums and listen to (and respond to) our feedback.
Again, I don't really care what the division of responsibilities is within the
organization. When I send a complaint about a user to just about any other
site (including Compuserve, a competing pay service), someone has the courtesy
to give me a reply. AOL doesn't. I don't consider stating the truth as
flaming the AOL person on the list. If he doesn't have a clue as to what
happens to mail when it goes to the AOL "Terms and Services" people, that's
fine; it still doesn't alter the problem.
> Agreed, but let's ascertain the cause without tossing all of AOL
> into the dungheap.
Had I done that, I wouldn't be discussing them here. They'd be in my reject
> >That's the reality of allowing aol.com users to sign on my lists.
> I don't have many aol.com subscribers, but I've not had much problem with
> bounce messages; perhaps I've been lucky in that respect.
> Hmm...I just saw AOL's announcement, in several Usenet groups, that (roughly)
> a dozen users were nuked for email/Usenet abuse. In that announcement, they
> apologized for being unable to reach every complainant. If memory serves, it
> was this diet thing...it sounds as if you just didn't get the word. (Interes
> tingly enough, AOL *immediately* started taking a PR beating for nuking the
> Keep in mind that they received, in all likelihood, hundreds of complaints
> about that email/Usenet spam. I'd like to get a personal reply to every-
> thing I send them, but I see the reality of email floods as well...8)
If that was the case, it seems logical that AOL would post such an apology to a
mailing list like this one. Given the multitude of problems members of this
list have had, I'd say it would have been a good PR move. The only thing I've
heard from AOL on this list is how they haven't seen my e-mail complaints.
> >AOL is a for-profit business that needs to clean up its public relations act
> I agree; however, I also see great improvement from their original positions
> and actions. This sort of thing doesn't just happen overnight. They could
> just as easily tell us to go find a corner; I, for one, am glad that they've
> begun participating in managerial forums like this...
Agreed that participation is an improvement. Now, if participation leads to a
reduction in the problems that are a reality when dealing with AOL, I'll
consider that participation a success.
|Edward J. Branley email@example.com|
|Seashell Software +1.504.455.5087 (voice)|
|3508 North Woodlawn Ave, Metairie, LA 70006 +1.504.455.8665 (bbs)|
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Wes Morgan)