🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Btxorx.3tL@research.canon.oz.au> greyham@research.canon.oz.au  
(Graham Stoney) writes:
>ernest@pundit.cithep.caltech.edu (Ernest Prabhakar) writes:
>>There are lots of reasons, most of them historical, for why prices were  
>>forbidden from being on USENET.
>
>Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap!
>(Gee, that felt good!).
>
>It's not _prices_ that's forbidden, it's _advertising_. Take the price off an
>advertisement, and what have you got?. Yes!. You've still got an  
advertisement.
>Either the prices should stay, or the advertisements should go: this is what
>the debate should be about, and historically the answer is that the
>advertisements should go. Keeping the advertisements but X'ing out the prices
>is bad regadless of whether you want the ads or not: everyone loses!

I agree with this. How often does one see prices on TV ads? Pretty rarely. But  
they're still commercials. I think prices (esp. if there is an ed. discount)  
should be allowed, but keep the hype down.

--
Jonathan Hendry  Anderson Financial Systems
jon@afs.com  (Nextmail Welcome!)
hendryjw@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu