From: "Ted White" <twhite8 at cox.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re" Phone Numbers
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 18:18:06 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

----- Original Message -----
From: <samlubell at verizon.net>
To: "WSFA members" <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 2:38 PM
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Re" Phone Numbers

> >From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
> >It's a service they provide and charge extra for.  To ignore the obvious
> >wishes of WSFAns who use this service, and publish the information
anyway
> >would just be extremely rude and divisive...unless the other legal
issues I
> >suggested are valid, in which case it would also be along the lines of
> >"actions inimical to WSFA" as it would expose WSFA to unnecessary risk
of
> >harm.
> >
> >Again I ask: what is the benefit to WSFA of publishing this particular
> >information?
>
> There's no benefit (other than faithfulness to the print edition) so if
anyone does not want their address or phone number we'll cheerfully remove
it.
>
> But going through our entire on-line journal backlog of over 30 years to
remove the phone numbers and remainder of addresses (remember part is
already blocked out) on the chance that someone might object seems like a
tremendous amount of effort for very little gain.
>
> I think the policy we already have, which is similar to that used by
Google, is sensible.  If someone wants their address or number removed we
will.
>
> Now if Keith says he has a UNIX command that will go through and replace
anything that looks like a phone number with (xxx) xxx-xxx that won't erase
similarly big numbers in treasurer reports and the like, that would be a
different story.

======

I still have the same phone number after 35 years (and, it's In The Book),
but I suspect that among most WSFAns I'm the exception, not the rule.  Most
phone numbers 30 years old are Very Obsolete -- and will no longer work
without area codes, anyway.

--Ted White