Your intentions? The only thing I said about you was:
"As long as you post once per item or item category and
Was it not your intention to say that you think the OP here was inappropriate? Is it not your intention that the posts you personally make even if O/T are appropriate? I doubt you would be posting them otherwise. What did I have wrong about your intentions?
You contribute a lot too. You also have a tendency to like to argue, and to try to police content. I admit I do the the former but not the latter.
FWIW I doubt I would post anything here for sale I would probably put it on TNL or another private operated forum because I could sell more of it or sell it quicker or to qualified buyers depending on what it was. If he posted them on a forum like TNL at a good price he could probably move all the locks to one or two buyers and be done with it but like I said before he may not have access to any of those forums.
Who the hell asked you? You're the one lacking the self control here. You respond to damn near everything Key posts whether directed to you or not and he only responds ocaisionally to you. His self control looks to be better than yours.
I don't think most people mind somebody coming here and posting a single short for sale. It has never proven to be a problem. No flood of such ads has ever materialized. The fact is you and I have burned 50X the resources he did with his ad discussing his ad. So at this point I'll just let it drop and even let you have the last word on it.
actually, timmy has been in my bozo bin for a while and he knows it. his continuing clueless comments just confirms my original observation of him as a troll. the only time I see his troll is when he (to put it a nicer way) spits against the wind :-)
"In 2005, there were approximately 25.8 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates."
If ONLY the legitimate businesses, and not the fly-by-night wannabes who usually birdsplat in the newsgroups, left one message each *and coordinated the effort so the traffic was averaged out over the year*, there'd be
You never uttered the word "charter". You claimed:
"Go ask this in news.newusers.questions. Newsgroups that don't specifically allow such articles are off-limits. The rule long predates your first appearance in Usenet, whenever it might have been."
Your entire argument boiled down to a usenet wide claim that barring explicit approval "such articles are off limits". The "rule" you claim applies does not exist, although it may (or may not) be the opinion of a certain number of people. Personally in the amount of time I was willing to spend on this (not that much) I was unable to find the original alt.locksmithing charter. If you know where it is and claim it says that individual type 'for sales' like the OP are not allowed lets see it. The group FAQ says nothing of the sort and includes a lot of links to commercial sources.
A tiny fraction of which are engaged in business that would result in on topic posts to this forum.
in
The "wannabes" for the most part are the individuals who's ads are generally considered acceptable. The rest are just spammers and you can send an abuse report on them for what good it will do.
who
And IF the sun didn't rise tomorrow........
I'm not worried about it because despite somewhat alarmist warnings to the contrary no such situation has ever materialized here.
In this case, the control message does not contain a charter, so you are left with the fact that the group is unmoderated and described by the term 'Discussion of locksmithing and locks.'
Guilty as charged. I usually do and habit grabbed me.
It was the majority view with few dissenters before some people in the newsgroup news.admin.net-abuse.usenet started wild theoretical discussions and started trying to placate spammers and other abusers. (At one point they declared that hipcrime, who flooded newsgroups with crap for the express purpose of making them unusable, was engaged in "performance art" if I remember the term correctly.) If you took everyone who uses Usenet and eliminated those who would like to spam, you'd find it's still the majority view.
Until 1993, you could have been thrown off your Usenet feed entirely for a single commercial message.
Whoa. Business posts are not permitted until expressly prohibited, it's the other way around.
I was referring to the spammer types who, without business license, incorporation, starting capital or any other such impediment, declare themselves lijitimut bizznissez and start blasting away at the newsgroups.
It would have; it was start "(Joel Furr) feels very strongly that advertising in newsgroups for profit is an abuse of the Internet's 'social compact' and hence should be avoided."
IMHO there are very few Usenet users who would want to placate or even tolerate true spammers.
(At one point
Flooding and spam are two seperate issues. The spammer just doesn't care the flooder intentionally tries to destroy a group or at least render it unusable in the short term. One can flood without spamming under any common defintiion and vice versa though this should not be taken to mean that I would condone either. The issue with non-spam flooding becomes who decides what is "crap". I remember an issue with flooding of non-copyrighted or no longer copy-righted poetry to one of the poetry groups I don't remember which one. Who decides if that is or isn't appropriate. It's on topic. Not spam. Not copy-righted material. The objection was volume alone.
Usenet and the internet itself has changed a lot since 1993. Most of what is now posted to usenet would have been considered inappropriate by most in 1993. Including this entire exchange by many people. We haven't covered anything that hasn't been covered to death before. Anybody can do a search and see this argument rehashed over and over on group after group. This is true of most of the posts now made to Usenet. The purist would say that anything that has already been covered, even if on topic, is a waste of resources. Connection speeds and storage capability have also changed a lot since 1993. I have over 10X the RAM now as I had HDD capacity in '93. This is a main reason for the relaxing of what is and isn't appropriate. Resources are much cheaper by the byte than they use to be.
That is not what you said. " (I wrote)
Go ask this in news.newusers.questions. Newsgroups that don't specifically allow such articles are off-limits. The rule long predates your first appearance in Usenet, whenever it might have been.
"
I didn't mention "business" postings specfically. I was referring to the post made here in this thread and those like it. You also didn't say "business" so all one can logically assume is that "such articles" referred to "for sale type postings" which is the way I referred to them in what you responded to. That would include all 'for sale' type posts, businesses, individuals, whatever. Whether the individual who wrote the OP is engaged in a business would be a seperate debate. Even then the FAQ contains links to what are definitely businesses and has been posted, although not in a while, to the NG so even that could then be considered a commercial posting.
If by blasting away you mean posting numerous and frequently off topic messages touting the latest greatest advancement in multi level marketing or johnson cream then if you want to hang them by their heels I'll supply the rope.
We largely aren't talking about the same thing anymore. You are now talking about true spam that virtually everyone would agree is spam and that meets the threshhold to be canceled as such. I'm talking about this post and indivdual posts like it which come nowhere near that threshhold. Good evidence of that is that the post that started this thread has not been cancelled. The practical objection to 'spam' has always been that it consumes vast amounts of resources while providing nothing to the collective Usenet knowledge base in return. I would argue that that is not true with regard to the individual who posts one or two ON TOPIC notices like the one that started this thread, here and there. alt.locksmithing has never been deluged with these type of posts. In fact they are fairly few and far between. If there was any consensus that such posts were a problem the FAQ would probably have been changed to say they are off limits by now. Like I said before to another poster we have used more resources debating the appropriatness of the post than the OP used to post it. The other objection has been simply that any 'for profit' use is somehow inherently wrong no matter how little resources it consumes, even if it advertises a useful topic product.
When you start talking about 'social compacts' you are really not talking about practical concerns with regard to use or abuse of resources any more you are talking about the 2nd primary objection I pointed out above. Usenet has strong roots in academia and many in academia have a definite left wing anti-capitalism bias which partially contributes to the view of absolutely no profit motivated postings.
I would presume it's more proportional to the aggregated time expended reading all the replies, and what could have been done elsewhere in that span of time. What is your time worth?
Tim what ya gotta understand is that Doug is a dumb f****ng hick who lives in a shitty trailer in a shittier trailer park where the sole form of entertainment is getting drunk off his ass and pissing in the neighbors flowers without getting caught. The f****ng loser is one step away from living in a van down by the river so expecting that he's gonna actually read on more than a 1st grade level or be anything other than the angry old f*ck he is is asking a whole f*ck of a lot.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.