🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <SCOTT.92Sep14054554@nic.gac.edu>  writes:
> What's your point?  This is a NeXT newsgroup, but ... did NeXT
> start it?  No.  

Well, NeXT caused it.

> Does NeXT post advertising to it?  No.  

Funny, I've seen posts that qualify as advertisement from NeXT.

> 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!  :-).

So, bytes-per-employee is now the measure.  Interesting.

> 
> 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.
> 
Odd, advertising, if not originated by the maker, is not advertising.
You make a good case for the "friends of Bush/Clinton" non-political ads.

> 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?
> 
Speculation.

> 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.
> 
Your point?

> 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?

No, I never noticed that was a policy.  I've certainly seen exceptions, if it  
is.

>  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.]
> 
A typical Reynoldism.  Not to be taken seriously.

> >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?
> 

How does this relate to anything?

> NOT!
> 
Wow, a nineties kind of guy!  "Groovy" would be the correct responsive 
reading, I assume?

> 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?  :-)]
> 

And, as I've said before, csn* can easily be seen as an ad.  Look up  
"advertisement", it mentions nothing about the source thereof.


> >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>

My point is/was/will be that it is not black and white, and when you try to  
draw a line in grey, you will not do it cleanly.  No one is pure as the driven  
snow, we all have our agendas, and so no one can be considered impartial enough  
to be the final judge.

Jim