Ironworks Gaming Forum - White House email filtered by agree or disagree

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - White House email filtered by agree or disagree (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76005)

What are the chances of an email getting read by anyone important if you disagree?

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/2237391

Quote:

An article detailing a byzantine new system for emailing President Bush, established by the White House, seems to have slowed the new Web contact form to a crawl, as users apparently flock to the site to see if the new system is as bad as described.
Until now, anyone with an Internet connection could send the president an email at President@WhiteHouse.gov. But The New York Times' John Markoff reported Friday that messages to that address are now bounced back to the sender, with a message that tells the sender to use the White House Web site's Web mail contact form instead.

"Under a system deployed on the White House Web site for the first time last week, those who want to send a message to President Bush must now navigate as many as nine Web pages and fill out a detailed form that starts by asking whether the message sender supports White House policy or differs with it," Markoff wrote.

Additionally, Markoff said the process of writing an email to the president requires the user to choose a subject from a provided list, and enter a full name, organization, address and email address. After sending the message, the process is not over. The user must then wait for an automated response, asking whether the sender intended to send the message.

The White House Web site's FAQ says users can still use the old email address, although it also discourages it: "Yes, you may still send e-mail messages to this address. However, as in the past, an auto-response will be sent in reply. To ensure you receive a more substantive and personalized response, please use the White House Web Mail system."

The FAQ also attempted to assure users that personal information collected through the process should not raise privacy concerns: "If you choose to send a Web Mail to the White House the personal information you provide will be used to respond to your message. We do not collect personal information for any other purpose. The information you provide is not given to any private organizations or private persons. The White House does not collect or use information for commercial marketing. For more information about the White House Website Privacy and Security Policy, please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/privacy.html."

[ 07-18-2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Here is a direct link to the new White House web mail system to see it for your self.

https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm

I'm pissed, you can select the legalization of Marijuana (they misspelled it by the way) under social issues, but there is no medical marijuana category under health issues. A sign how "compassionate" a conservative Bush really is?

I didn't think to look for industrial hemp under business issues though.

asking whether the message sender supports White House policy or differs with it

This could be a good thing if he puts these first, and uses them as constructive criticism to possibly fix things people are upset with. Reading the ones who support policy is a waste of time because they are just a pat on the back and unlikely to offer any opinion on policy or how to correct it.

The thing is do we actually believe this option is being used this way? [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]

[ 07-18-2003, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

How much you want to bet the 'disagree' emails have the sender placed on a terrorist watch list and are then routed to /dev/null? [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

Saddam Hussien.

Yes or No.

Now, now, I am sorely tempted to ask President Bush a question under the "I disagree" label. I know, I know, I am not a U.S. citizen. What do you think would arrive to my mail coming from FreedomLand, mmm ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW, has anyone of you regular U.S. citizen sent a "disagree"-labelled mail ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Quote:

Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Here is a direct link to the new White House web mail system to see it for your self.

https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm

I'm pissed, you can select the legalization of Marijuana (they misspelled it by the way) under social issues, but there is no medical marijuana category under health issues. A sign how "compassionate" a conservative Bush really is?

I didn't think to look for industrial hemp under business issues though.

Why should there be a separate category for marijuana under health issues? Doctors can prescribe marijuana for certain medical conditions (if need be), so why should the subject of legalizing it be listed in two separate categories?

Since I seriously doubt that President Bush was the one who designed the new system and website, this has no bearing on how "compassionate" a conservative Bush really is? That was a shamefully cheap shot.

As for filling out the personal information requested (including full name, address, and business or workplace), this isn't some subversive plot to collect vital data on potential dissidents...it is actually proper etiquette when writing a formal business letter. Of course, this instruction is largely lost on today's culture where emails and Instant Messages encourage very informal communication (even when discussing official business matters). But in the not too distant past when the only way to communicate was through pen-&-paper, it would have been considered absolutely unacceptable to type or write a letter without including the requested information.

Quote:

Originally posted by pritchke:
asking whether the message sender supports White House policy or differs with it

This could be a good thing if he puts these first, and uses them as constructive criticism to possibly fix things people are upset with. Reading the ones who support policy is a waste of time because they are just a pat on the back and unlikely to offer any opinion on policy or how to correct it.

The thing is do we actually believe this option is being used this way? [img]graemlins/firedevil.gif[/img]

It's a double-edged sword for sure. This is just the first problem I notice with the this system. I would hope, if he were reading emails from citizens at all, that he were to read them without pigeon-holing them before hand.

And yes, considering human arrogance, I believe it is possible the option can be abused to screen dissenting veiwpoints.

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
Why should there be a separate category for marijuana under health issues? Doctors can prescribe marijuana for certain medical conditions (if need be), so why should the subject of legalizing it be listed in two separate categories?

Since I seriously doubt that President Bush was the one who designed the new system and website, this has no bearing on how "compassionate" a conservative Bush really is? That was a shamefully cheap shot.

As for filling out the personal information requested (including full name, address, and business or workplace), this isn't some subversive plot to collect vital data on potential dissidents...it is actually proper etiquette when writing a formal business letter. Of course, this instruction is largely lost on today's culture where emails and Instant Messages encourage very informal communication (even when discussing official business matters). But in the not too distant past when the only way to communicate was through pen-&-paper, it would have been considered absolutely unacceptable to type or write a letter without including the requested information.

Umm, Cerek, you are not up to speed on the medical pot issue if you think doctors can prescribe pot. You certainly don't know Bush's stance on the issue.

see here: http://www.ironworksforum.com/ubb/no...;f=27;t=000062

Quote:

from news article:
The Bush administration wants the Supreme Court's permission to strip prescription licenses from doctors who recommend marijuana to sick patients.

The administration, which has taken a hard stand against state medical marijuana laws, asked the high court to strike down an appeals court ruling that blocked the punishment, or investigation, of physicians who tell patients they may be helped by the drug.

I disagree that Bush is as compassionate as claimed since he opposes giving sick people the medicine that works by advocating *not* allowing doctors to prescribe it. Not a cheap shot at all, just calling it like I see it. I have no shame at all about it. None.

The cannabis issue is more complex than how it is pidgeon-holed at that web-mail service. That is why I have issue about it.

Medical Marijuana is a seperate health issue from over-all legaization. An important issue to some Americans who don't want to be lumped together with people advocating legalization for casual users.

edit-I lost some words about the compassion part.
edit 2- added a news snippet from the linked post
edit 3- took out my original post, it made this whole thing too long.

[ 07-18-2003, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Quote:

Originally posted by Moiraine:
Now, now, I am sorely tempted to ask President Bush a question under the "I disagree" label. I know, I know, I am not a U.S. citizen. What do you think would arrive to my mail coming from FreedomLand, mmm ? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

BTW, has anyone of you regular U.S. citizen sent a "disagree"-labelled mail ? [img]smile.gif[/img]

Nope, I haven't sent one in yet. Though I am curious what the auto-reply will say.

I stand corrected on the ability of doctors to prescribe marijuana. I suppose I should have said they can recommend the use of marijuana, but that might even be too strong a term. Still, having worked in a hospital setting for 12 years now, I honostly thought they could prescribe, recommend, advocate, {or whatever} the use of cannabis to relieve the pain of cancer - but only in extreme cases. I do know for a fact that they can prescribe morphine in as large (and frequent) dose as needed to relieve pain if a case is terminal. They are allowed to make the last hours or days of the person as pain free as possible (at least in NC - I've seen this happen personally).

As for the complexity of the cannabis issue - I'd be interested to hear what the complexities are. As a non-user, I saw no problem with the way the email page was set up....but as we've just seen, I can be wrong.......occasionally. ;)

Quote:

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:
I stand corrected on the ability of doctors to prescribe marijuana. I suppose I should have said they can recommend the use of marijuana, but that might even be too strong a term. Still, having worked in a hospital setting for 12 years now, I honostly thought they could prescribe, recommend, advocate, {or whatever} the use of cannabis to relieve the pain of cancer - but only in extreme cases. I do know for a fact that they can prescribe morphine in as large (and frequent) dose as needed to relieve pain if a case is terminal. They are allowed to make the last hours or days of the person as pain free as possible (at least in NC - I've seen this happen personally).

As for the complexity of the cannabis issue - I'd be interested to hear what the complexities are. As a non-user, I saw no problem with the way the email page was set up....but as we've just seen, I can be wrong.......occasionally. ;)

Can't we all, present company included. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I can only offer the websit for NORML-The national organization for the reformation of marijuana laws- http://www.norml.org/index.cfm

Personal use- http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3375
Medical Use- http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3376
Industrial Use- http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3377

I admit it is a biased source- but they offer references for their facts and the membership roster includes many doctors, and other professionals. Not just a bunch of stoned hippys is my point. ;)