[LINK] Link's Influence

[Karl Auer]

On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 15:36 +0000, stephen at melbpc.org.au wrote:
> If we believe Link has social value (and obviously we contributors do)
> and that it's an important local mechanism for change, then obviously
> we should logically wish to extend its reach, in an appropriate manner.

If I believe my religious beliefs have social value (and obviously I do)
and that it's an important local mechanism for change, then obviously
we should logically wish to extend its reach, in an appropriate manner.

> Secondly if we believe that journalists and politicians, and so Australia,
> will benefit from knowledge of Link email discussions, then logically we
> might need to ensure that these people, in particular, are aware of Link.

Secondly if we believe that journalists and politicians, and so
Australia, will benefit from knowledge of our religious beliefs, then
logically we might need to ensure that these people, in particular, are
aware of our religious beliefs.

> Hence one suggests a warm and sincere email invitation is devised for
> wide dissemination amongst just such a target membership.  A friendly
> and informative personal invitation to join pointing out the many
> benefits to all concerned of Link membership does seem appropriate and
> timely.

Hence one suggests a warm and sincere email invitation is devised for
wide dissemination amongst just such a target membership.  A friendly
and informative personal invitation to join pointing out the many
benefits to all concerned of membership in our church does seem
appropriate and timely.

> We all know a 'personal' invitation to join a group is often seen as
> quite an honour, and from Link's point of view, such added expertise
> can only benefit existing members.

We all know a 'personal' invitation to join a religious group is often
seen as quite an honour, and from our religion's point of view, such
added expertise can only benefit existing believers.

> It may be said we have a social duty to build
> an appropriate membership, if we believe we benefit Australia. And, it is
> probable that 'many' potentially valuable members are not aware of Link.

It may be said we have a social duty to build our church, if we believe
we benefit Australia. And, it is probable that 'many' potentially
valuable members are not aware of our religion.

> Thus a simple two/three paragraph membership invitation sent to every
> sitting Member, and the major journalists and editors does make sense
> to this subscriber anyway. A brief, timely, and certainly very appropriate
> email invitation to Link would cost nothing and may well assist everyone.

Thus a simple two/three paragraph membership invitation (to join our
church) sent to every sitting Member, and the major journalists and
editors does make sense to this believer anyway. A brief, timely, and
certainly very appropriate email invitation to join our religion would
cost nothing and may well assist everyone.

Hmmmm.

Emails, unless to someone you actually know, are not personal. Sending
two identical messages to two people is not personal for either of them.
Sending the identical email to lots of people is not personal, it's
spam, no matter how "warm and sincere" you make it.

Link is not a cause, it's not a religion, it's not something to promote.
It's an ongoing discussion - that's all. Not every discussion benefits
from more participants. In fact, most don't.

Regards, K.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)                   +61-2-64957160 (h)
http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/                  +61-428-957160 (mob)