🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug28.230103.2854@ifi.unizh.ch> lytras@avalon.physik.unizh.ch (Lytras Apostolos) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.193432.14085@utstat.uucp> philip@utstat.uucp (Philip McDunnough) writes:
>>Whatever it takes to put those prices back in should be done. This is 
>>[...]
>
>I disagree strongly. This is not what Usenet is about, we *certainly*
[...]
>
> 7. Usenet is not an advertising medium.
>
>    Because of Usenet's roots in academia, and because Usenet depends
>    so heavily on cooperation (sometimes among competitors), custom
>    dictates that advertising be kept to a minimum.  It is tolerated
>    if it is infrequent, informative, and low-hype.
>
>    The "comp.newprod" newsgroup is NOT an exception to this rule:
>    product announcements are screened by a moderator in an attempt to
>    keep the hype-to-information ratio in check.
>
>    If you must engage in flackery for your company, use the "biz"
>    hierarchy, which is explicitly "advertising-allowed", and which
>    (like all of Usenet) is carried only by those sites that want it.
>
>Why should c.s.n.a overrule a widely accepted rule like this? This just
[...]

Please explain how putting pricing information in a single post product
announcement would overrule this, eh? As if the already filtered
announcements will all of a sudden magically turn into ads because they
have pricing in them! I totally fail to see your point, 7. is being
misinterpreted IMNSHO.

If anything the pricing information makes them less hype and more informative.

la la la,
-- 
::   Christopher Lloyd  ::  a74k110@titan.ucc.umass.edu  ::  Yrrid, Inc.    ::
::"He said he'd make me elite for $5...I think he wanted a sub or somethin'"::