🚀 go-pugleaf

--------------AB0AFD30A91C7898FEA0CB58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

this is not a flame

I find it fascinating for what it is worth, that you are now apparently enforcing
the net charter rules you so vehemently fought when you first posted and were flamed
for repeatedly. Time has passed and all have come to an accommodation concerning tag
line and sig size and well - etc. Though this is a sliding scale so ymmv

I don't care about  rules inherently especially in an open forum newsgroups
concerning dfw.anything (yes I have read the charters, but so what), but after a
very short time I figure out which posts and threads to just ignore and go on to
something I may find relevant.

Question

Why is this approach so hard for anyone to implement?  Why do we need newsgroups
police in the first place? If it is unmoderated, then posters and more importantly
readers police the group by what they choose to read or not read. Moderated is a
different deal.

Guess I just don't get it at this level, but then again - Is not required that I
understand this deal, will continue to just scroll down past what I consider
irrelevant "stuff" and read what I consider relevant.

"MaxxCorp, INC." wrote:

> Well I have discussed my SIG FILE with quite a few people who I value
> their opinions. These include people who are in ABUSE depts at Web
> Hosting companies & ISP's. They see NO PROBLEM with my SIG FILE. But I
> know you want to control everyone & make them follow you beliefs &
> values. GET OVER IT !!!!!
>
> On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:10:14 -0600, Bob Peterson
> <abusereporter0@mail.zgnews.com> wrote:
>
> >al <pabbi@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>Bob Peterson wrote:
> >>> "Jason" <Jason24richardson@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>He just sent a message to abuse@comcast.net to say that I was in violation
> >>>>of the dfw.forsale charter.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   He's right.
> >>>
> >>>   Your article promoting "Jason's Lawn Service" violates the
> >>> dfw.forsale charter clause that says, "Non commercial postings only."
> >>> A lawn service certainly seems to qualify as a commercial enterprise,
> >>> and you certainly posted an article promoting your company.
> >>>
> >>>   And on April 1, 2003, you posted a message saying, "All I do is Mow
> >>> lawns. I hate it if I loose a customer because of something I can't
> >>> do."  (See the message thread at
> >>> http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=42272&page=2&pp=10).  Sounds
> >>> an awful lot like a commercial enterprise, what with customers and
> >>> all.
> >>>
> >>>   Then there's the entry on Texas Contractor Ratings' Web site
> >>> (http://www.texascontractorratings.com/contractors/Jason's-Lawn-Service).
> >>> Seems to be no doubt that "Jason's Lawn Service" is a commercial
> >>> operation.
> >>>
> >>>   Now, what part of "Non commercial postings only" don't you
> >>> understand?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jason
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>   Followups set.
> >>>
> >>>     Bob
> >>
> >>Any comment about MaxxCorp's sig line, including links to an adult site,
> >>featuring nudity and intercourse?
> >
> >Mentioning one's business in a signature that conforms to the
> >generally accepted size limits (see the new Usenet user articles
> >routinely published in news.announce.newusers) is certainly OK.
> >Mark's .sig clearly exceeds the four line maximum suggested in the
> >various Netiquette articles, and was, for a time, a point of
> >discussion.  IMNHO there is a difference between mentioning a business
> >as part of one's contact information and promoting a business.  Mark
> >clearly promotes, while most others provide contact information.  Mark
> >continues to be Mark.
> >
> >Mark's behavior, including the businesses he operates and promotes,
> >simply illuminate the type of person he is.
> >
> >>So, if Jason would just sell *something*, and tag a sig line offering
> >>lawn service, he'd be OK?
> >
> >"OK" is a matter of opinion.  Mark can't very well complain about a
> >message whose body conforms to the newsgroup charter and that includes
> >a .sig mentioning the poster's business.
> >
> >Don't make the mistake of assuming no one is complaining just because
> >you see no complaints in the newsgroup.
> >
> >Bob
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.MaxxCorp.net - Custom Computer Solutions * SOHO Services
>
> http://www.FMCSA.org - A Non-Profit Group Dedicated to Safer Commerical Driving.
>
> http://www.DallasSaturdaySocials.com - Dallas Alternative Lifestyle Parties.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------AB0AFD30A91C7898FEA0CB58
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
this is not a flame
<p>I find it fascinating for what it is worth, that you are now apparently
enforcing the net charter rules you so vehemently fought when you first
posted and were flamed for repeatedly. Time has passed and all have come
to an accommodation concerning tag line and sig size and well - etc. Though
this is a sliding scale so ymmv
<p>I don't care about&nbsp; rules inherently especially in an open forum
newsgroups concerning dfw.anything (yes I have read the charters, but so
what), but after a very short time I figure out which posts and threads
to just ignore and go on to something I may find relevant.
<p>Question
<p>Why is this approach so hard for anyone to implement?&nbsp; Why do we
need newsgroups police in the first place? If it is unmoderated, then posters
and more importantly readers police the group by what they choose to read
or not read. Moderated is a different deal.
<p>Guess I just don't get it at this level, but then again - Is not required
that I understand this deal, will continue to just scroll down past what
I consider irrelevant "stuff" and read what I consider relevant.
<p>"MaxxCorp, INC." wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Well I have discussed my SIG FILE with quite a few
people who I value
<br>their opinions. These include people who are in ABUSE depts at Web
<br>Hosting companies &amp; ISP's. They see NO PROBLEM with my SIG FILE.
But I
<br>know you want to control everyone &amp; make them follow you beliefs
&amp;
<br>values. GET OVER IT !!!!!
<p>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 07:10:14 -0600, Bob Peterson
<br>&lt;abusereporter0@mail.zgnews.com> wrote:
<p>>al &lt;pabbi@swbell.net> wrote:
<br>>
<br>>>
<br>>>
<br>>>Bob Peterson wrote:
<br>>>> "Jason" &lt;Jason24richardson@comcast.net> wrote:
<br>>>>
<br>>>>
<br>>>>>He just sent a message to abuse@comcast.net to say that I was in
violation
<br>>>>>of the dfw.forsale charter.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; He's right.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; Your article promoting "Jason's Lawn Service" violates
the
<br>>>> dfw.forsale charter clause that says, "Non commercial postings
only."
<br>>>> A lawn service certainly seems to qualify as a commercial enterprise,
<br>>>> and you certainly posted an article promoting your company.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; And on April 1, 2003, you posted a message saying,
"All I do is Mow
<br>>>> lawns. I hate it if I loose a customer because of something I can't
<br>>>> do."&nbsp; (See the message thread at
<br>>>> <a href="http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=42272&page=2&pp=10">http://www.lawnsite.com/showthread.php?t=42272&amp;page=2&amp;pp=10</a>).&nbsp;
Sounds
<br>>>> an awful lot like a commercial enterprise, what with customers
and
<br>>>> all.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; Then there's the entry on Texas Contractor Ratings'
Web site
<br>>>> (<a href="http://www.texascontractorratings.com/contractors/Jason's-Lawn-Service">http://www.texascontractorratings.com/contractors/Jason's-Lawn-Service</a>).
<br>>>> Seems to be no doubt that "Jason's Lawn Service" is a commercial
<br>>>> operation.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; Now, what part of "Non commercial postings only" don't
you
<br>>>> understand?
<br>>>>
<br>>>>
<br>>>>>Jason
<br>>>>
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp; Followups set.
<br>>>>
<br>>>>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Bob
<br>>>
<br>>>Any comment about MaxxCorp's sig line, including links to an adult
site,
<br>>>featuring nudity and intercourse?
<br>>
<br>>Mentioning one's business in a signature that conforms to the
<br>>generally accepted size limits (see the new Usenet user articles
<br>>routinely published in news.announce.newusers) is certainly OK.
<br>>Mark's .sig clearly exceeds the four line maximum suggested in the
<br>>various Netiquette articles, and was, for a time, a point of
<br>>discussion.&nbsp; IMNHO there is a difference between mentioning a
business
<br>>as part of one's contact information and promoting a business.&nbsp;
Mark
<br>>clearly promotes, while most others provide contact information.&nbsp;
Mark
<br>>continues to be Mark.
<br>>
<br>>Mark's behavior, including the businesses he operates and promotes,
<br>>simply illuminate the type of person he is.
<br>>
<br>>>So, if Jason would just sell *something*, and tag a sig line offering
<br>>>lawn service, he'd be OK?
<br>>
<br>>"OK" is a matter of opinion.&nbsp; Mark can't very well complain about
a
<br>>message whose body conforms to the newsgroup charter and that includes
<br>>a .sig mentioning the poster's business.
<br>>
<br>>Don't make the mistake of assuming no one is complaining just because
<br>>you see no complaints in the newsgroup.
<br>>
<br>>Bob
<p>----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br><a href="http://www.MaxxCorp.net">http://www.MaxxCorp.net</a> - Custom
Computer Solutions * SOHO Services
<p><a href="http://www.FMCSA.org">http://www.FMCSA.org</a> - A Non-Profit
Group Dedicated to Safer Commerical Driving.
<p><a href="http://www.DallasSaturdaySocials.com">http://www.DallasSaturdaySocials.com</a>
- Dallas Alternative Lifestyle Parties.
<br>---------------------------------------------------------------------------</blockquote>
</html>

--------------AB0AFD30A91C7898FEA0CB58--