238 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
238 lines
12 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
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
|
|
*I* make a retraction of von Trapp's statement! And he made
|
|
noises like he was going to sue me. So I had to put aside all the
|
|
critics telling me what I "should" be doing, all of the bounce
|
|
back messages, and study a little bit about the law and what I
|
|
can be sued for. I'm still not any kind of expert, but at least I
|
|
have some sort of clue as to what I can safely say.
|
|
|
|
Do you begin to see all the grief I have to go through, just to
|
|
get out an "e-zine" that takes you about 5 minutes to read? Yet
|
|
there is some satisfaction on my own part, a good feeling I get,
|
|
that I have made my own small dent against the universe of lies.
|
|
|
|
But I am not NBC. I am not the New York Times. They have large
|
|
staffs, lots of money -- *they* could be covering *all* the
|
|
stories that certain people keep mealy-mouthing that I "should"
|
|
be covering. Well guess what? I can't do it! Why not start
|
|
yapping at the heels of Time magazine, which could reasonably be
|
|
expected to fulfill your expectations, instead of at me? I am
|
|
just one person at a computer. Carnegie does not fund me. CIA
|
|
does not slip me money. It's just me here, *losing* money, one
|
|
man and a computer.
|
|
|
|
Which brings me to how I began. It was just me, about 3 years
|
|
ago, sending out an alternative news service about once a day.
|
|
And from there, more and more people began to read what I had to
|
|
say. But see, it has been my effort that has slowly built up the
|
|
readership. So guess what? If I can do it, so can you. Of course
|
|
it's easier just to carp at me and what I'm doing. Still, if you
|
|
want, you yourself can pick up the slack and show me how you can
|
|
do it better.
|
|
|
|
How have I formed CN, what are its guidelines? I set up CN to
|
|
target a specific niche: people without a lot of time on their
|
|
hands. My ideal for CN is a daily article that people can read in
|
|
5 minutes. Sure, you can pester me to send out a deluge of info,
|
|
you can swamp me with all kinds of long articles and all types of
|
|
stories that need to be told. But what you don't understand is
|
|
that CN is set up to be what is called "low volume" -- no huge
|
|
quantities of info going out; no avalanche falling into the
|
|
readers' mailboxes. That is why even though many good articles
|
|
are sent my way some of them never get passed along via CN. CN is
|
|
not set up to handle large volume. That means that if I get 10
|
|
good articles, only 1 of them gets sent out. What's that you say?
|
|
You don't agree with how I do it? *Too* *bad*.
|
|
|
|
Something else: when someone gives me grief about what I "should"
|
|
be doing, how I "should" be running things, I also look to see if
|
|
they are a subscriber to the CN Newsletter. Funny thing is that
|
|
most of my major critics are not paid subscribers to the
|
|
newsletter!
|
|
|
|
Here's my favorite klunk message from a CN reader: one reader,
|
|
from Wisconsin I think it was, sent an e-mail explaining that his
|
|
daughter was in school down here but she didn't have a telephone.
|
|
Could I go to her place, knock on the door, explain who I am, and
|
|
ask her to please phone her father collect?
|
|
|
|
Another reader criticized my digging through "ancient
|
|
newspapers". He sneered about "How come you can find time to dig
|
|
through ancient newspapers but you can't hurry up and get this
|
|
article I sent out there right now, right this minute?" I admit I
|
|
blew my stack at that one. My answer to him was that *I* am the
|
|
goddamn editor and I'll send out whatever stories I decide. Don't
|
|
like it? Then cancel. I lose no money by your cancelling.
|
|
|
|
(Just why is it that I should especially give a damn if some
|
|
reader cancels or not? Just why is it that I should give a damn
|
|
as to what some reader thinks about me and my "rag"? Why should I
|
|
care just whose ears a certain reader may be whispering into
|
|
behind my back, seeking his shanty-town vengeance in a sneaky
|
|
way?)
|
|
|
|
Here's a tip about "hurry up" jobs. Sometimes people will send
|
|
you an article and say "Hurry, hurry, hurry! Get this out right
|
|
*now*!" What these people don't understand is that I have got to
|
|
be careful about what I put out there. Take, for example, the
|
|
article I sent out by Jon Rappoport. Now Rappoport is a fine
|
|
fellow and I think highly of his work. And when I saw that I had
|
|
been sent the transcript of his interview of Hoppy Heidelberg, I
|
|
began *on* *my* *own* to think about how best to schedule it. But
|
|
I wanted to read through the article before I sent it out.
|
|
Suppose, for example, that some "dirty trickster" had inserted a
|
|
fake message of a hateful nature right smack dab in the middle of
|
|
the transcript and I then unknowingly sent that out! Can you
|
|
imagine what some biased journalists might do with that? They
|
|
could write something like, "Redman claims he won't touch hate
|
|
material. So why is it, Mr. Editor-in-Chief, that you sent out
|
|
the following?" Can you see why when I get this "Hurry, hurry,
|
|
hurry stuff" I have got to ignore it and instead "chew on things
|
|
a bit?" But some persons who have no experience whatsoever at
|
|
what *I* have been doing for almost 3 years now, nonetheless will
|
|
waste no time giving me headaches when I don't do what their
|
|
ignorance demands.
|
|
|
|
I note that I am past the 5 minute reading niche. So, if you are
|
|
still reading this let me thank you for helping me dump some of
|
|
this stuff. We now resume our normal programming.......
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail
|
|
address, send a message in the form "subscribe cn-l My Name" to
|
|
listproc@cornell.edu (Note: that is "CN-L" *not* "CN-1")
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
For information on how to receive the new Conspiracy Nation
|
|
Newsletter, send an e-mail message to bigred@shout.net
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Want to know more about Whitewater, Oklahoma City bombing, etc?
|
|
(1) telnet prairienet.org (2) logon as "visitor" (3) go citcom
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
See also: http://www.europa.com/~johnlf/cn.html
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
See also: ftp.shout.net pub/users/bigred
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
|
|
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et
|
|
pauperem. -- Liber Proverbiorum XXXI: 8-9
|
|
|