🚀 go-pugleaf

[I promised myself I would _not_ post on this issue again ... but,
I left open this little trap-door, because I just _knew_ someone
out there would walk into it, thereby letting me post again :-)]

In article <1992Sep11.225237.22731@cube.handheld.com>
	jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>Come on folks, wake up and smell the coffee!  I've said I before,
>but here goes:
>
>This is comp.sys.NEXT.*  This set of usenet groups is ONE BIG
>COMMERCIAL PROMOTION FOR NEXT.  We `push' NeXT sales here.  To draw
>a line and say it's ok to blatently promote NeXT as a group, but
>not permit a developer to describe his NeXT supportive wares here
>is to draw a line in a far too grey area.  NeXT needs these wares
>available in order to survive and to maintain the reason for these
>groups.

What's your point?  This is a NeXT newsgroup, but ... did NeXT
start it?  No.  Does NeXT post advertising to it?  No.  Does NeXT
post at _all_ to it?  Well, given the relative sizes of RightBrain
and NeXT, and the amounts of information that they post, the answer
there is really awful close to "No" again.  If NeXT had the same
number of bytes-per-employee posted to the net as RightBrain does,
then there wouldn't be any room for the rest of us!  :-).

The operative words are that "_We_ push NeXT sales".  Not NeXT.
It's the consumer who's doing it.  At least in my case, I wouldn't
have complained at all if someone unrelated business-wise to
RightBrain had posted the exact same information after developing
it on their own.

Also, I feel the need to make an important point - except for a
select few, the majority of the NeXT vendors have virtually _no_
net.presence.  But, most of them _do_ read news.  I wonder what
they know that they aren't sharing with the rest of us?

In a similar vein, have you noticed that almost without fail
employees of large computer firms do not post anything but
informational, question-answering type posts?  They almost _never_
initiate a thread.

And in yet _another_ similar vein, have you noticed that magazines
don't allow companies to review their own products nor their
competitor's products?  Weird ... [Of course, I'd better point out
that in this case it sounded very much like the company _wasn't_
letting the employee post the review, which makes things a little
better.]

>And he ain't taking any orders here, folks.  No mention of price
>at all.

They didn't mention prices in their Fall 1992 NeXTWorld centerfold,
either.  Does this mean that NeXTWorld didn't charge them anything?

NOT!

An ad is an ad is an ad, regardless of presence of pricing information.
This is part of why we have a debate about pricing in csn.announce.
[Most people, of course, think it's a question of whether we should
include prices.  What if it's a question about whether the ads
should be there in the first place?  :-)]

>Fortunately, it seems to me (as always, my opinion only) that the
>complainers, while they are loud, are always the same select few.
>
>And I admit I am a loud proponent, there needs to be balance in
>the 'coverage'

:-).  And, you never know - perhaps there's an even larger, silenter
majority out there who really doesn't give a d*mn.  [Somehow, I
suspect I just stated an axiom, at least in this day and age.]

Later,
--
scott hess <shess@ssesco.com>       <A port is a port, of course, of course>
12901 Upton Avenue South, #326  Burnsville, MN 55337 (612) 895-1208 Anytime!
<You praise me with faint damns, the dragon growled.  -Castle Roogna, Xanth>