[REPORT] LSH: AOL Chat for 9/10/96 with Peyer, Moy & Boyd
Rob Hansen
On Sun, 15 Sep 1996 13:31:07 GMT, buz...@netcom.com (Godmaster
Buzzsaw) wrote:
>(Lurk Off!)
>
>In article <51fvtt$3...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, "T. Troy McNemar, Esq."
><tro...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
>> next year. The decision was not made by the editors or writers,
>> so Tom did not know the reason why. Tom indicated that if Legion
>> fans really wanted annuals, it might not hurt to write DC and ask
>> for them.
>
>Normally I'd be happy (since I tend to hate annuals), but the LSH and L*
>annuals have been very good the past two years (of course, the L* annual
>hasn't come out yet, but I'm expecting it to be good). So, is this because
>of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
>
As long as it isn't as bad as this year's, or another Elseworlds
variation, I don't much care.
>>
>> Tom has been told that the Legion books are doing well in sales
>> and rising. Ron had heard that the Legion books and PREACHER
>> were the only two books at DC with rising sales.
>>
>
Oddly enough, I was given a copy of the trade pb of the first seven
issues of PREACHER this very week. It's sick, disgusting and depraved.
I loved it!
Since sales are rising, this would seem to idicate that this wasn't
why next year's annuals were cancelled. Curious.
>> Tom promised that the creative teams planned to go all out for
>> LSH #100 and L* #50. Ron indicated that LSH #100 might--and he
>> stressed might--be 100 pages long. Ron further observed that
>> #100 will be about 2 months away from the Legion's 40th
>> anniversary.
>>
>
>Gah, a 100 pages??? I love the Legion books, but a 100 page story would
>take me about 2 hours to read...
>
Suits me. I _like_ long reads.
>>
>> Ron hinted that Apparition may undergo a change in LSH #87. Tom
>> quipped that she would go from being a ghost to a mummy or a
>> werewolf.
>>
>
>A mummy form would be cool. Have there been any mummified superheroes?
Yes. The Mummy. A 1970s Marvel character, appeared in SUPERNATURAL
CHILLERS, if memory serves.
"The opinions expressed in this sig are not necessarily
those of the person posting."
Godmaster Buzzsaw
(Lurk Off!)
In article <51fvtt$3...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, "T. Troy McNemar, Esq."
<tro...@indirect.com> wrote:
>
> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
> next year. The decision was not made by the editors or writers,
> so Tom did not know the reason why. Tom indicated that if Legion
> fans really wanted annuals, it might not hurt to write DC and ask
> for them.
Normally I'd be happy (since I tend to hate annuals), but the LSH and L*
annuals have been very good the past two years (of course, the L* annual
hasn't come out yet, but I'm expecting it to be good). So, is this because
of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
>
> Tom has been told that the Legion books are doing well in sales
> and rising. Ron had heard that the Legion books and PREACHER
> were the only two books at DC with rising sales.
>
Woohoo! Time to get more of my friends to start reading them... :-)
>
> Jeff indicated that there is a Dalek (from Dr. Who) in L* #31.
>
Will it have a tongue? :-)
>
> Tom promised that the creative teams planned to go all out for
> LSH #100 and L* #50. Ron indicated that LSH #100 might--and he
> stressed might--be 100 pages long. Ron further observed that
> #100 will be about 2 months away from the Legion's 40th
> anniversary.
>
Gah, a 100 pages??? I love the Legion books, but a 100 page story would
take me about 2 hours to read...
>
> Ron hinted that Apparition may undergo a change in LSH #87. Tom
> quipped that she would go from being a ghost to a mummy or a
> werewolf.
>
A mummy form would be cool. Have there been any mummified superheroes?
>
> Impulse will guest star in LSH #88. Tom promised fans that
> Impulse will be very annoying in the LSH story and will actually
> go down in LSH history twice.
>
<chuckle> Maybe the Legion and Max Mercury can trade ideas on how to deal
with Impulse...
>
> The Legion fights Wonder Woman villain Dr. Psycho in LSH #90.
>
Since I don't read Wonder Woman, who's Dr. Psycho?
>
> Tom did some writing work on L* #44, which introduces a new
> villain who is a tribute to Jeff. The villain's name is Ze
> Tongue. Tom reported that the villain "has a thick French
> accent, which is surprising because he's from outer space."
>
<groan>
'Course, it would be weird to see the Legion being attacked by a giant
human tongue...
--
buz...@netcom.com
"My bite is worse than my bark."
Johanna Draper
In article <buzzsaw-ya0230800...@10.0.2.1>,
Godmaster Buzzsaw <buz...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Normally I'd be happy (since I tend to hate annuals), but the LSH and L*
>annuals have been very good the past two years (of course, the L* annual
>hasn't come out yet, but I'm expecting it to be good). So, is this because
>of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
In cases like this, it's usually because of sales, which is a bad thing.
>Since I don't read Wonder Woman, who's Dr. Psycho?
A dwarf-like man with the ability to control thoughts and create illusions
realer than real.
Johanna
SDelMonte
In article <323c5ade...@news.demon.co.uk>, r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk
(Rob Hansen) writes:
>Since sales are rising, this would seem to idicate that this wasn't
>why next year's annuals were cancelled. Curious.
I have a suspicion that the theme for next year's annuals won't work for
Legion, and that TPTB are so determined to have everything use the same
redundant, ill-conceived theme that the Legion annuals were thus cancelled
for the year.
Anyone else want to see DC return to having annuals that either have a
very loosely structured theme, like the "Secrets of the DC Universe" theme
in 1989, or no theme at all, which was last seen in 1990?
Simon DelMonte
"If I'd known that a common enemy could bring us together,
I would have invented one years ago." - Lex Luthor
Adnan Hussain
Well...now that college has started I've slowed down in making
additions to the page...I've got some other stuff I've worked on, but
that's for a SPECIAL project you'll hopefully see some time...meanwhile
check out the new pic at:
www.geocities.com\SunsetStrip\6432\legion.htm
-Adnan (Mad-Guru)
Johanna Draper
In article <323c5ade...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Since sales are rising, this would seem to idicate that this wasn't
>why next year's annuals were cancelled. Curious.
Not necessarily. Sales can be rising but not high enough to justify an
annual.
Johanna
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, buz...@netcom.com (Godmaster
Buzzsaw) wrote:
> (Lurk Off!)
Security alert! Sector racdl! :)
> In article <51fvtt$3...@sanjuan.islandnet.com>, "T. Troy McNemar, Esq."
> <tro...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
>> next year.
> So, is this because of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
I suspect (but don't know) that it's because of sales. In all liklihood,
DC is taking a bath on the annuals and is trying to cut their losses by
not producing annuals for lower-selling titles.
[Insert Annual Theme Rant here.]
>> Ron hinted that Apparition may undergo a change in LSH #87. Tom
>> quipped that she would go from being a ghost to a mummy or a
>> werewolf.
> A mummy form would be cool. Have there been any mummified superheroes?
Hmmm. Was Marvel's "Living Mummy" a super-hero?
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"You could say to the universe this is not fair. And the universe would
say: Oh, isn't it? Sorry."
--Terry Pratchett, "Soul Music"
LLL!
Early Evolution of Elmo
"T. Troy McNemar, Esq." <tro...@indirect.com> writes:
> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
> next year.
Boo, hiss. I thought KC was in charge of Annuals next year?
> Ron indicated that LSH #100 might--and he stressed might--be 100 pages long.
That would be very cool.
Please, please, please do this!
--
"Practice Random Kindness and Senseless Acts of Beauty"
--Unknown
elmo (mor...@physics.rice.edu,mor...@fnalv.fnal.gov)
http://www.bonner.rice.edu/morrow
Johanna Draper
In article <51ij5l$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
SDelMonte <sdel...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have a suspicion that the theme for next year's annuals won't work for
>Legion, and that TPTB are so determined to have everything use the same
>redundant, ill-conceived theme that the Legion annuals were thus cancelled
>for the year.
Not true. The reason seems to be sales-related. Write DC and tell them you
want Legion annuals!
>Anyone else want to see DC return to having annuals that either have a
>very loosely structured theme, like the "Secrets of the DC Universe" theme
>in 1989, or no theme at all, which was last seen in 1990?
Lots of people, judging from the discussion on this topic over in rac.dc.u.
Johanna
Dan McEwen
Johanna Draper wrote:
>
> In article <51ij5l$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> SDelMonte <sdel...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I have a suspicion that the theme for next year's annuals won't work for
> >Legion, and that TPTB are so determined to have everything use the same
> >redundant, ill-conceived theme that the Legion annuals were thus cancelled
> >for the year.
>
> Not true. The reason seems to be sales-related. Write DC and tell them you
> want Legion annuals!
I tried, but the address I had (DCUDC...@AOL.com) bounced. I wrote
Tom Peyer, and he suggested that the "U" and the "O" were in the wrong
places. I'll have to see if the message with the altered address makes
it through.
> >Anyone else want to see DC return to having annuals that either have a
> >very loosely structured theme, like the "Secrets of the DC Universe" theme
> >in 1989, or no theme at all, which was last seen in 1990?
>
> Lots of people, judging from the discussion on this topic over in rac.dc.u.
>
Count me in. I actually liked the "Secrets of the DC Universe", but I
prefer no themes to my annuals. L* Annual #2 is a perfect example of
the type of annual I like to read. It's relevent to the on-going series
and there's no question about how it fits into continuity.
--
Daniel
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
Dwight Williams
SDelMonte (sdel...@aol.com) writes:
> In article <323c5ade...@news.demon.co.uk>, r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk
> (Rob Hansen) writes:
>
>>Since sales are rising, this would seem to idicate that this wasn't
>>why next year's annuals were cancelled. Curious.
>
> I have a suspicion that the theme for next year's annuals won't work for
> Legion, and that TPTB are so determined to have everything use the same
> redundant, ill-conceived theme that the Legion annuals were thus cancelled
> for the year.
>
> Anyone else want to see DC return to having annuals that either have a
> very loosely structured theme, like the "Secrets of the DC Universe" theme
> in 1989, or no theme at all, which was last seen in 1990?
Or a _Who's Who_ theme...
--
Dwight Williams(ad...@freenet.carleton.ca) -- Orleans, Ontario, Canada
Jay J
In article <1996Sep1...@riph7.rice.edu> Early Evolution of Elmo wrote:
>"T. Troy McNemar, Esq." <tro...@indirect.com> writes:
>> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
>> next year.
>
>Boo, hiss. I thought KC was in charge of Annuals next year?
>
>> Ron indicated that LSH #100 might--and he stressed might--be 100 pages
> long.
>
>That would be very cool.
Any thoughts that maybe these two are related ? A 100 page book plus
2 annuals would require a lot of pinch hitters. Which might not be a
bad thing for us, but it would probably kill KC, who is going be to
busy enough with however many annuals there are going to be.
I, for one, would rather see a mega-size #100 with the resolution of
a major plotline or three than a "special" #100 and two annuals with
"theme-of-the-year" stories.
Jay J
I don't need no steenkin' signature
Felix J. Torres
In article <51h5s2$9...@netnews.upenn.edu>, dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) says:
>
>In article <buzzsaw-ya0230800...@10.0.2.1>,
>Godmaster Buzzsaw <buz...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Normally I'd be happy (since I tend to hate annuals), but the LSH and L*
>>annuals have been very good the past two years (of course, the L* annual
>>of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
>
>
>>Since I don't read Wonder Woman, who's Dr. Psycho?
>
>A dwarf-like man with the ability to control thoughts and create illusions
>realer than real.
>
So far, he seems to prefer to operate within dreams, but he has transcontinental
range. His illusion power works on waking people, but not too well, apparently.
He is also subject to pretty nasty feedback if his chosen victim beats him in the
dream.
He is also one *sick* puppy.
Felix J. Torres
In article <buzzsaw-ya0230800...@10.0.2.1>, buz...@netcom.com (Godmaster Buzzsaw) says:
>
>(Lurk Off!)
>
><tro...@indirect.com> wrote:
>>
>> Tom reported that there would not be annuals for either LSH or L*
>> so Tom did not know the reason why. Tom indicated that if Legion
>> fans really wanted annuals, it might not hurt to write DC and ask
>> for them.
>
>annuals have been very good the past two years (of course, the L* annual
>hasn't come out yet, but I'm expecting it to be good). So, is this because
>of next year's annuals theme? If so, what is it? :-)
>
<snip>
>> Tom promised that the creative teams planned to go all out for
>> LSH #100 and L* #50. Ron indicated that LSH #100 might--and he
>> stressed might--be 100 pages long. Ron further observed that
>> #100 will be about 2 months away from the Legion's 40th
>> anniversary.
>>
>
>Gah, a 100 pages??? I love the Legion books, but a 100 page story would
>take me about 2 hours to read...
>
Think of it as an LSH movie...
A full 100 pages of the LEGION in one sitting...
Ahh! Heaven...
Anyway, maybe doing the oversized issues is why there won't be annuals...
Johanna Draper
In article <323E46...@worldnet.att.net>,
Dan McEwen <djmc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Johanna Draper wrote:
>> Write DC and tell them you want Legion annuals!
>
>I tried, but the address I had (DCUDC...@AOL.com) bounced.
As always, paper letters are preferable to email.
Johanna
BKittyhawk
I would rather see good stories, than read an annual that might happen to
fit a theme. I think themes are more for the editors than for the
readers. Also the long format of annuals should allow for more background
tales, instead of the current extended tales common.
Sclaritaparter
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
>> >I have a suspicion that the theme for next year's annuals won't work for
>> >Legion, and that TPTB are so determined to have everything use the same
>> >redundant, ill-conceived theme that the Legion annuals were thus cancelled
>> >for the year.
>>
>> Not true. The reason seems to be sales-related. Write DC and tell them you
>> want Legion annuals!
>
>I tried, but the address I had (DCUDC...@AOL.com) bounced.
As Johanna as stated elsewhere, snailmail letters are treated more seriously
than e-mail. I encourage everyone to snailmail DC with their requests for
Legion annuals for 1997.
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"I let my mind wander and it didn't come back."
--Calvin, "The Days Are Just Packed"
LLL!
T. Troy McNemar, Esq.
Michael "Klordny" Grabois) wrote:
>All of DC's AOL addresses start with DCO, for "DC Online".
IIRC, the "DCU" prefix is also used now for several official DC addresses.
--
T. Troy McNemar, Esq. Tro...@indirect.com
"I do not recommend revenge. It tends to have repercussions."
--Morpheus, "The Kindly Ones"
LLL!
Michael Klordny Grabois
On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:36:24 -0700, Dan McEwen <djmc...@worldnet.att.net>
wrote:
>
>I tried, but the address I had (DCUDC...@AOL.com) bounced. I wrote
>Tom Peyer, and he suggested that the "U" and the "O" were in the wrong
>places. I'll have to see if the message with the altered address makes
>it through.
All of DC's AOL addresses start with DCO, for "DC Online".
-----
Michael R. Grabois | http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mgrabois
Houston, TX | or...@ix.netcom.com CI$: 74737,2600
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do me a favor, Lightning Lad... shut up and dance!" (S/LSH 232)
Dan McEwen
Johanna Draper wrote:
>
> In article <323E46...@worldnet.att.net>,
> Dan McEwen <djmc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >Johanna Draper wrote:
> >> Write DC and tell them you want Legion annuals!
> >
>
>
supply me with the correct information.
BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email? Does this mean the
Legion votes by email held less weight than those sent by snail mail? I
don't quite understand the logic.
--
Daniel
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
Dan McEwen
Michael Klordny Grabois wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 23:36:24 -0700, Dan McEwen <djmc...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I tried, but the address I had (DCUDC...@AOL.com) bounced. I wrote
> >Tom Peyer, and he suggested that the "U" and the "O" were in the wrong
> >places. I'll have to see if the message with the altered address makes
> >it through.
>
> All of DC's AOL addresses start with DCO, for "DC Online".
Thanks for the tip. Incidentally, I found the _incorrect_ address in
the back of Tempest #1.
--
Daniel
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
Johanna Draper
In article <323FA2...@worldnet.att.net>,
Email is easier, as we all know. Because of that, the PTB take more
seriously an opinion where someone has bothered to take the time and
expense to write snailmail.
>Does this mean the
>Legion votes by email held less weight than those sent by snail mail?
No. That's a different type of situation. (A poll, where they specifically
asked for input and allowed email.)
Johanna
Douglas Limmer
Dan McEwen <djmc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email? Does this mean the
>Legion votes by email held less weight than those sent by snail mail? I
>don't quite understand the logic.
Because e-mail is _very easy_ to write and send. For instance, I
decided to respond to this post in about 15 seconds. And that's
including taking the time to see if anyone else responded first. And
the writing implements are right in front of me, and it doesn't cost
me anything (more) to send it. And I don't have to leave my chair.
Snail-mail is harder to send, so you have to me more motivated to
actually _do_ it. Thus, the people who s-mail in feel more strongly
about the issue, on average, than the people who e-mail do.
This should have no bearing on Legion election votes whatsoever.
Douglas Limmer -- lim...@math.orst.edu
To answer your question |
Ernie has the Buddha-nature | Matt Cibula,
Bert does not. | national haiku champion, 1995
David Crowe
Johanna Draper <dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
: In article <323FA2...@worldnet.att.net>,
: Email is easier, as we all know. Because of that, the PTB take more
: seriously an opinion where someone has bothered to take the time and
: expense to write snailmail.
Of course, since everyone here has a computer, it isn't _that_ much
harder. Just hit the "print" function rather than the "send mail" one,
then stuff an envelope. Even a kindergardener can stuff an envelope. Are
you saying you can't do what a kindergarder can do, maggot! Drop and give
me 50!
Whoops, got carried away. :) Still, you should all get writing. A big
bag of letters makes a big impression. Go watch Miracle on 34th Street.
--
David "No Nickname" Crowe No generalization is true
-not even this one.
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
: >BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email? Does this mean the
: >Legion votes by email held less weight than those sent by snail mail? I
: >don't quite understand the logic.
: Because e-mail is _very easy_ to write and send. For instance, I
: decided to respond to this post in about 15 seconds. And that's
: including taking the time to see if anyone else responded first. And
: the writing implements are right in front of me, and it doesn't cost
: me anything (more) to send it. And I don't have to leave my chair.
: Snail-mail is harder to send, so you have to me more motivated to
: actually _do_ it. Thus, the people who s-mail in feel more strongly
: about the issue, on average, than the people who e-mail do.
That's part of it. The rest of it is that e-mail, and the whole online
world, is still not entirely... trusted by the PTB at DC Comics, even the
folks who have e-mail access. Snail mail is taken a lot more seriously.
- Elayne
--
E-Mail me, the "Firehead Head," for more info about the official ()~~
Firesign Theatre newsletter, Four-Alarm FIRESIGNal, available via ##
snail mail or free online! "Now, don't be afraid in the New Age; ##
there's a seeker born every minute!" _##_
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput
David Crowe (jet...@primenet.com) wrote:
: : >BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email?
: : Email is easier, as we all know. Because of that, the PTB take more
: : seriously an opinion where someone has bothered to take the time and
: : expense to write snailmail.
: Of course, since everyone here has a computer, it isn't _that_ much
: harder. Just hit the "print" function rather than the "send mail" one...
Not everyone here has a printer. I don't own a printer at home. If I'm
going to send a letter, I have to wait to get to work, then download the
file in which my letter resides, *then* print it. Which is kinda silly,
since I can just compose a letter in a word processing program. Which I
don't do, because 99% of my correspondence for the past three years has
been via e-mail. I am the world's worst snail mail correspondent-- and I
say this as someone who had over 150 penpals at one point 20 years ago.
Dan McEwen
Elayne Wechsler-Chaput wrote:
> That's part of it. The rest of it is that e-mail, and the whole online
> world, is still not entirely... trusted by the PTB at DC Comics, even the
> folks who have e-mail access. Snail mail is taken a lot more seriously.
>
you're saying. I still think it's silly. But I suppose I can waste
more trees on snail mail. :)
--
Daniel
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
DScottDoty
In article <3241F1...@worldnet.att.net>, Dan McEwen
<djmc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
Well, as far as our not being representative, they have a point. To go
by Usenet, not a single person likes Green Lantern, which sales do
not bear out, and the Legion is more popular than the entire Image
line, due to the high traffic on this newsgroup. Of course, people who
take the trouble to write letters are probably not representative
either, but in our case it's proven. Does this mean that our opinions
have no value? Of course not. Does this mean that they aren't
going to treat our letters as being representative of all the people
who don't write? Probably.
Dave Doty
Dan McEwen
Trevor Barrie wrote:
>
> dan...@aurora.cis.upenn.edu (Johanna Draper) wrote:
>
> >>BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email?
>
> >Email is easier, as we all know. Because of that, the PTB take more
> >seriously an opinion where someone has bothered to take the time and
> >expense to write snailmail.
>
> something the inefficient way a good thing?
I agree with you. Email is faster and doesn't contribute to the garbage
dump. Maybe people who send letters on email rather than snailmail do
do because they're ecologically conscious. :)
--
Daniel
djmc...@worldnet.att.net
Trevor Barrie
Rob Hansen
On Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:12:01 -0700, Dan McEwen
<djmc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I agree with you. Email is faster and doesn't contribute to the garbage
>dump. Maybe people who send letters on email rather than snailmail do
>do because they're ecologically conscious. :)
>
Also - and of rather more interest to DC, I'd have thought - someone
using email is likely to have more disposable income than someone
sending a letter.
Rob Hansen_____________________________________________
"The opinions expressed in this sig are not necessarily
those of the person posting."
Simon Berest
Previously on rec.arts.comics.dc.lsh, fire...@panix.com (Elayne
Wechsler-Chaput) wrote:
> I am the world's worst snail mail correspondent-- and I
> say this as someone who had over 150 penpals at one point 20 years ago.
Not True, I claim that honour of being the worst snailmail writer, I do
100% of my correspondance by email. Ask my friends all over the world
about my letter writing capability, its gotten to teh point, where I cant
take written tests, as I have forgotten to write!!!!.
Simon
==========================================================
"I do not lead you, you lead me" The Spectre - KC #3
Simon Berest (th...@dircon.co.uk) (sim...@nova.mdx.ac.uk)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sun.mdx.ac.uk/~simon13
==========================================================
David Crowe
: >>BTW, why should paper mail be preferable to email?
: >Email is easier, as we all know. Because of that, the PTB take more
: >seriously an opinion where someone has bothered to take the time and
: >expense to write snailmail.
: Well, that's pretty silly of them. How is taking the time and expense to do
: something the inefficient way a good thing?
E-mail has the same problem with making an impact that phone calls do: Out
of sight, out of mind. Saying to an editor "we got 240 Emails from people
who want Matter-Eater Lad dead" doesn't have the same impact as waving a stack
of 240 letters in front of them.
TV stations regard 1 letter as representing the opinions of 1,000 people.
Johanna Draper
In article <32439a88...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Rob Hansen <r...@fiawol.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Also - and of rather more interest to DC, I'd have thought - someone
>using email is likely to have more disposable income than someone
>sending a letter.
Someone using email is also more likely to not reflect the majority of
readers in age, so they're less likely to be listened to. If you really
want to have a chance at changing something, use snailmail.
Johanna
--
"In the new day, things aren't so bad at all."
-- Voice of the Beehive, "New Day"