Email Detail

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "url": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/2ENRKXGBNKDQFT6RXNA3MKGOS3DCMYUA/?format=api",
    "mailinglist": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/?format=api",
    "message_id": "[email protected]",
    "message_id_hash": "2ENRKXGBNKDQFT6RXNA3MKGOS3DCMYUA",
    "thread": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/thread/SFL7TGV3MOFEUBZLSQ62R7D6OD3BXJVG/?format=api",
    "sender": {
        "address": "ka8kpn (a) brokersys.com",
        "mailman_id": "89176305e99b441cbf14e6a0bff09344",
        "emails": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/sender/89176305e99b441cbf14e6a0bff09344/emails/?format=api"
    },
    "sender_name": "Jonathan Guthrie",
    "subject": "[amsat-bb] Re: Life Membership",
    "date": "2010-01-17T21:50:31Z",
    "parent": "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/SFL7TGV3MOFEUBZLSQ62R7D6OD3BXJVG/?format=api",
    "children": [
        "https://mailman.amsat.org/hyperkitty/api/list/[email protected]/email/RHC456SLGUVW3VSOADMBY7HKK7HNHOE2/?format=api"
    ],
    "votes": {
        "likes": 0,
        "dislikes": 0,
        "status": "neutral"
    },
    "content": "Clint Bradford wrote:\n>>> ... my $50 membership thirty years ago is worth $1,000,000 in 2010 dollars ...\n> \n> All moot, of course. Your fifty bucks contributed years ago was exactly that - and nothing else - period. It was used back then - and any comparison to what it is worth today is valueless.\n> \n> \"What have you done for AMSAT recently?\" - is a much more appropriate discussion.\n\nI mean you no offense, but you miss the point completely.\n\nOf course, it is impossible to say with certainty what would have\nhappened, it is pretty clear to me that without some very early members\nwho thought well enough of the organization to contribute the additional\nmoney required to gain a life membership it is entirely possible, likely\neven, that AMSAT is a going entity wouldn't exist.  Raising funds for a\nnew organization, one without any track record, with lofty goals is hard\nenough in the best of times, and it becomes impossible without some sort\nof seed money, and seed money is always in short supply.\n\nWith that in mind, I believe that, when put to an early life member, it\nis entirely reasonable to respond to your question \"What have you done\nfor AMSAT recently\" with \"I have made it possible for you to make your\ncontribution.\"  I am not saying this to diminish your contributions\n(which I admit entirely put mine to shame) but to put them in\nperspective.  It is a far different thing to help get something like\nAMSAT off the ground, and activity something I have some experience\nwith, than it is to contribute to AMSAT with it's rich 40 year history. \n  That makes early contributions worth far more than their absolute\nvalue even in constant dollars.\n\nWhen put to someone who bought his or her life membership much later, it\nis entirely appropriate to respond that purchasing a life membership\ngains an organization more money than buying an annual membership.  It\nis appropriate because it is entirely true.  Organizations do not offer\nlifetime memberships because certain of their members are so cheap they \ninsist upon it.  Instead, they offer them because it makes a great deal \nof business sense for them to do so.  Not only do you lose the \nnontrivial administrative costs of billing and processing a payment \nevery year, but you also gain positives like a predictable circulation \nfor your newsletter (always good for selling ads) and the ability to \ninvest the money, which you can't do with what you get from annual \nmemberships.\n\nAs far as the AUP goes, I have viewed this whole debate as something \nlike a teapot-sized tempest.  I read the AUP when it was first \nannounced, and my perspective was probably a little bit different than \nmost readers because in the 1990's I had a chance to draft a similar \npolicy for an organization I was part of.  That was an interesting \nexperience in figuring out how to do the most good for the most people. \n  I think AMSAT did a pretty good job with what they came up with.  The \nguidelines are mostly positive (\"here's what we want to see\") and the \nthings that are forbidden are those that are, in my opinion, frankly \nindefensible.  You can still talk smack about the BoD and complain that \nAMSAT's efforts are wrongly directed just like you've been able to since \nwhenever this thing started.  I can't imagine that the BoD thinks the \nAUP will protect them from harsh criticism.  Instead, I think they're \nhoping to make amsat-bb more useful and, with some luck, less embarrassing.\n\nThe thing is, you can still get into battles with those who tend to get \nunder your skin, and you know who they are, and your best bet for \ndealing with those people will be, as it has always been, to let them \nhave their say and ignore them the best you can.  My rule is, \"Don't \nrepeat yourself.\"  If you don't have anything new to add to an \ndiscussion, then remaining silent is always good and nobody sees that as \nagreement.  Of course, thanks to Usenet, I have a very powerful ignore \nreflex, so it may not be possible for everyone to take that advice.\n\nIt will remain to be seen if the moderators have the courage to do their \njob well.  I've also done that, and it's harder than you think.\n\nThat's juts one opinion, worth what you paid for it.\n\n!DSPAM:117,4b538639187032152248392!\n\n\n",
    "attachments": []
}