From britdisc-owner@csv.warwick.ac.uk  Thu Jun 10 15:23:26 1999
Received: by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA06780
	for britdisc-outgoing; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:22:22 +0100 (BST)
Received: from daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (daffodil [137.205.192.30])
	by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA06773
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:22:21 +0100 (BST)
Received: from baby.kbw.co.uk (baby.kbw.co.uk [193.133.242.75])
	by daffodil.csv.warwick.ac.uk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA12605
	for <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:22:20 +0100 (BST)
Received: by baby.kbw.co.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <L95TB61T>; Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:02:35 +0100
Message-ID: <1DBF2E3701DFD211A65300902728A91B3ECF3A@baby.kbw.co.uk>
From: Roger Thomson <roger.thomson@oyster.co.uk>
To: BRITDISC <britdisc@csv.warwick.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Ultimate Growth
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:02:28 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by pansy.csv.warwick.ac.uk id PAA06776
Sender: owner-britdisc@warwick.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk

PARENTAL ADVISORY: This is a considered response to Master Nistri's
simplistic put-down of my well meant proposal for electronic distribution of
Ultimatum and differential fees. If you don't care about it, don't read on.
Don't be too easily offended by some of the more dramatic comments, I love
theatre. I warned you - so if you read it you do so at your own peril, no
flames please.

I've just received, read and digested Derek's comments. They have some
bearing. They should be factored into more precise calculations than my back
of the envelope stuff below. They are sensible. They do not, however, affect
the general gist of what I am saying. The full gist follows:



Christian,

> why on earth should people who have the benefit of
> computers at work be favoured by paying less than
> those who haven't access to the internet?

<rhet> Why on earth should the people who are up with technology pay for the
administration costs brought about by those with more luddite attitudes? The
Industrial Revolution is over. This is the Digital Revolution. It is a
Revolution, let there be no doubt. If you don't surf the wave you get
crushed by it.

> You might
> argue that, some one who has access can print off
> copies for the team members who don't? O.K., well
> what's to stop just one team member paying full
> memebership and printing copies off for the whole
> team.

Nothing, but that is in fact the most beautiful thing about such a system.
Thanks for highlighting that fact. It only encourages more savings.
Distributed distribution - every system analysts wet dream. My wet dream.
Paul Hurt's wet dream.

> Let's be fair and have every one paying the
> same, with discounts for students and un-employed. 

Sounds fair enough, but I wasn't addressing those particular issues in my
mail. You Guardian readers are, thanks to democratic rule, entitled to heap
more favour upon those of yourselves already blessed with copious free time,
lack of committments and absence of any real responsibility. If I was in
charge you'd be in a boot camp. 

> If the only difference between the two membership fees
> is as you suggest the "postal and administrative
> costs", I fail to see where the savings for the BUF
> would be.

Hmm let me see:

Cost of first class stamp - 26p 
Cost of one manilla  envelope - 10p
Cost of one auto-print address label - circa 1.5p
Cost of labour to pack each one (approx 20/hour @ £5/hour (presuming we get
it done in the North ;-))) - 25p
Cost of printing: 63p (figures supplied by Paul Hurt - see Appendix A below)

Cost of each postal delivery - £1.255
Estimated current UK player base - 2000

Cost of each mailshot - £2510
Estimated number of mailshots/year - 7 (one before season start, one per
Tour event and one after Nationals)

Cost of mailing a years worth of issues: £17,570

Estimated BUF revenue: 2000 * £25 = £50,000


Can you smell the roses yet Christian?

The environmental costs of reduction of Treeware (as RV called it) have not
been included in these calculations because our capitalist free market
economy is not sufficiently sophisticated or regulated that externalities
like this are factored into prices. They only reinforce my argument. If that
sentence was too much to digest - HIPPIES AGREE WITH ME!

> If I pay less but don't receive an Ultimatum,
> I am the only one who has made any saving.

Not if only a portion (to be decided) is passed on as a consumer saving. 50%
could be retained and regarded as a charitable donation from those with
computers towards those without. How sweet.

> I think
> it's important not just to think of ourseleves but how
> we can all contribute, wouldn't you agree Roger?

I agree, but maybe one should be thinking of what one is contributing rather
than one's personal animosity towards another poster before attempting to
contribute, if rather naively, purely to settle a personal disagreement?
Mine was a serious attempt to drag the BUF proposal into the 21st century,
considered and thought through - was yours? 

There are arguments against differential fees. Some. Some of those deserve
attention. Wigsy failed to mention any of those. There are further reasons
for differential fees which I have not mentioned. The argument will evolve. 

> If anybody can argue sensibly against
> such an approach, please do.

I don't consider the argument by any means closed, especially not in Wigsy's
favour ;-), and possibly not in my favour:-(, so please - more views! 

regards,
PieBoy
Bad Company, Strange Blue, Regulators, Hombres, Shotgun, Shotgone, DoughBoy

and always provocative

PS any syntax errors or errors in calculation are because of work pressure.
I can hardly breathe. I apologise in advance.
PPS Nolan's mail was to you and I personally (you can tell by looking in the
header...), netiquette dictates that if you mail a response to the mailing
list you should include the full text of his message to allow others to
judge for themselves. I have included the full message in Appendix B in
order to fulfill that obligation. I especially liked the waterproof putdown.
Nice 1 Noles.
PPPS Yes, I am a complete and utter technology fascist. Why aren't you all?


APPENDIX A

Ultimatum printing costs: (direct from Paul Hurt, the horses mouth)

Cost of 800 copies: £575
Therefore cost of 2000 copies: £1437.5 (but let's be kind and say we get a
discount, making it £1200)
Cost of managing print run: 3hrs @ £20/hr = £60

Total: £1260
Per copy: 63p

APPENDIX B

Rarely have I heard such complete Bunkum! Idealists need to get to grips
with the fact thet there is no equality in life whatsoever and those who
propose it's implementation are 'suicidal theorists'.

People with cars get places quicker (arguably) and indeed are called upon to
give rides to teammates who don't have such luxuries and who's only
alternative might be to pay a train fare or somesuch. That's the real World
Christian. Been there lately?

Do you plan to ban personal ownership of anything that might be beneficial
to an individual in case that person gains an advantage of some type. I'm
all in favour of supporting those with general financial drawbacks such as
students and the unwaged but it's pushing the point just a teency weency bit
towards just plain dum, to suggest that no-one should be allowed to benefit
from ownership of a consumer item of some kind. If I'm the only one who
turns up at a tournament with waterproofs and it pours, you're getting wet
I'm afraid buddy.

If one team member prints out Ultimatum for the whole damn team and anyone
else who'd like a copy, fine. That's publicity. Others don't pay membership
won't be able to take part in any BUF sanctioned competitions. Their loss!

Being fair constitutes promoting the sport for the benefit of the
participants. That would appear to be exactly what Roger was proposing.
Don'y let naive ideology hold us all back.

Hugs
N