🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:28:07 GMT, "Daniel Chenault"
<danielc@dc-resources.net> scribbled this interesting note:

>Opening: The author is aware that this discussion was handled in this group
>back in March 2002. That particular discussion thread was marked with ad
>hominems, off-topic banter and a general lack of directed discussion as to
>the point of the post. The thread itself died without any true consensus
>being formed, thus the topic is not dead.

<snip>

>The author yields at this time to open discussion of the proposal.

Agreed, the discussion shouldn't be considered as being over. The fact
that it keeps comming up demonstrates the need for some kind of
re-evaluation of the subject.

I, for one, think there is a fundamental difference between something
that is for sale at a set price and an auction where the price is
somewhat fluid. True, both items are, strictly speaking, for sale, but
the method of determining the price is fundamentally different. That
being said, I don't like the idea of co-mingling the two. If I want to
see a list of items that are for sale, I can go to dfw.forsale. If I
want to see a list of items that are to be auctioned, I'd like to be
able to go to dfw.forauction. 

The fact that many active participants in the dfw.forsale group seem
to have a deep-seated dislike of eBay and other commercial, online
auctions, is probably reason enough not to co-mingle the groups.

That being said, opening up an auction newsgroup to any and all comers
would seem to make it unwieldy since purely commercial posts would
overwhelm the individual. It seems that, similar to dfw.forsale, any
auction group ought to be limited in scope to individual,
non-commercial sellers. Commercial sellers have other avenues and
abilities such as storefronts (in many cases) and web-sites that are
better suited to their needs. A group specifically for the small,
individual seller looking to clear out his/her garage or office or
attic of extra, unwanted items, would seem to have a useful place in
the dfw.* hierarchy, since, as Daniel points out, commercial sites
such as eBay don't seem to offer the ability to search by geographic
region with no other search parameters.

--
John Willis

I have been posting and reading in DFW forsale for approximately 6 years 
now.  I have had great experience as of yet.  Thanks for any and all 
work done to help keep running well.

Ok, now that the brown nosing is over...

I have never objected to the addition of ebay posts until now.  I did 
not realize the amount of sellers posting on ebay from dfw.  I just did 
a search for any items from the DFW area that had the word "a" in the 
subject or description (should be most, if not all items from DFW.)  It 
came up with 142156 items.  Now these are active auctions.  Assuming 
that most of these are for 7 days, that's 20308 per day.  If only one 
percent (1%) of these people posted even one ad on dfw.forsale that 
would be 203 posts PER DAY!  And I'm sure that the word would spread 
that it was now allowed.

Perhaps I am over guessing the 1%.  Perhaps it would be closer to .5% 
Many ebay posters are either corporate (not allowed,)  or not computer 
literate enough to know what a NG is (much less how to set it up.)

I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them 
usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will 
be encountered.

Craig Manning
craigmanning@charter.net


Daniel Chenault wrote:
> Opening: The author is aware that this discussion was handled in this group
> back in March 2002. That particular discussion thread was marked with ad
> hominems, off-topic banter and a general lack of directed discussion as to
> the point of the post. The thread itself died without any true consensus
> being formed, thus the topic is not dead.
> 
> Based on a reading of that thread, the author asks that participants adhere
> to a few simple requests:
> 1. No ad hominems. At all. Period. None.
> 2. If a poster objects to the proposal (outlined below) said poster should
> give a reasoned rationale or logic explaining his position. "I don't like
> it" is neither reasonable nor logical, it is an opinion. While opinions are
> certainly welcome, opinions without a reasoned basis are a waste of time and
> bandwidth and do very little to further the discussion. Please refrain.
> 3. A reason why the proposal should be rejected that is based on current
> wording of the charter is a circular argument. Circular arguments do not add
> to a discussion; please refrain.
> 4. "That's the way it's always been" is not a reasoned argument. Please
> refrain.
> 
> Thank you. On with the show.
> 
> Author wishes to open discussion regarding amending the current charter of
> the Usenet newsgroup dfw.forsale. Current charter may be found at
> http://www.cirr.com/dfw/charters. Author proposes that discussion continue
> for 14 days from date of this post with a CFV on the 15th day.
> 
> The section for which amendment is requested is "Intended Use of
> dfw.forsale", item #6.5, to wit:
>               5. (FA) For Auction
>                  Local Auction announcements only for the dfw Area. Items
>                  available at an Auction, or Auction announcements. Links
>                  to Commercial Auction sites are not permitted. No Public
>                  Auctions shall be held in this newsgroup.
> Proposed wording of above:
>               5. (FA) For Auction
>                  Local Auction announcements only for the dfw Area. Items
>                  available at an Auction, or Auction announcements. No
> Public
>                  Auctions shall be held in this newsgroup. FA posts must
> adhere to all
>                  relevant sections of this charter, specifically but not
> limited to #3 in this section
>                  (regarding non-commercial posts).
> 
> Discussion:
> 
> It is apparent from the FA posts that do appear on dfw.forsale that there is
> a need and desire to do so; if it were not against the charter there might
> be more posts further underlining the community's desire for such posts.
> 
> dfw.forsale exists as a service for the residents of DFW and surrounding
> areas. Those residents have varied needs and desires and insofar as those
> can be met within a reasonable framework the newgroup should attempt to meet
> those needs. Knowing that any and all users (obviously those with a
> computer, internet access and a desire to "wheel and deal") are welcome to
> the group it should be noted that not all users know that eBay (as one
> example) has regional auctions, that it is searchable or indeed that eBay et
> al even exist. It is the belief of the author that users come to dfw.forsale
> to look for items of interest in a specific geographic region and that
> dfw.forsale gives them a convenient location in which to do this.
> 
> NB: although eBay does list items by region it is not possible to search
> only by region: one has to search by item and can restrict the search to a
> regional area. If it is, indeed, possible to search only be geographical
> area such a search is not evident to the author. The author feels he is a
> competent, experienced user of considerably more than user class; if he
> can't find it, neither can the average user.
> 
> Knowing that any and all users in the DFW area are welcome to dfw.forsale,
> both to post items for sale as well as to browse the posts, it does not seem
> fair, or logical, to exclude from full participation those who choose to
> auction items rather than sell them nor those who wish to browse _all_ that
> is available. In some ways it may help the off-topic "Price Police" posts
> responding to for-sale ads where the seller maybe doesn't know how much to
> ask; an auction allows the marketplace to set the price. In another vein, I
> have posted items for sale with OBO (or best offer) and had it turn into a
> bidding war (offline) between participants.
> 
> In trying to understand why the restriction against auction posts, the
> author came up with the following possible objections:
> 1. It's not "for sale". The only tangible difference between an auction and
> an outright sale is how the sales price is determined. An item being auction
> is no different from an item that is for sale save for the determination of
> price. The author finds this distinction spurious and irrelevant.
> 2. It will invite a "spew" of posts (from thousands of individual users as
> distinct from a spew of posts from one user), drowning the newsgroup. While
> this may indeed happen that would only show that a new newsgroup,
> dfw.auction, is called for (in looking through the archives it seems this
> has been raised as a possibility before but there is not empirical evidence
> to support it). Market activity is not, in itself, a bad thing. Stifling an
> otherwise free market is, however, a bad thing.
> 
> Any other possible objections (posting the auction link too much, for
> example) are covered in other areas of the charter.
> 
> The author yields at this time to open discussion of the proposal.
> 
> 
> 
> 

In article <uopqhh361at46c@corp.supernews.com>,
 Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:

> I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them 
> usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will 
> be encountered.

That's what filters are for.

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

In article 
<B2150B2F619FB14E.80E09187DE9BFDE1.46B6535AC57C93EA@lp.airnews.net>,
 John Willis <jdwillis@airmail.net> wrote:

> The fact that many active participants in the dfw.forsale group seem
> to have a deep-seated dislike of eBay and other commercial, online
> auctions, is probably reason enough not to co-mingle the groups.

How about a dfw.forsale.atauction newsgroup?

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

In article <hackedaoprl1.230j.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
 
| Your not gettin to the point. Auction announcments are allowed in
| dfw.forsale, so this whole section has no relevance. As long as the are
| Auction announcments of *local* Auctions taking place.

Wouldn't these local auctions usually be conducted by somebody who
charges a fee or a percentage of the revenues?  In that case, wouldn't
the auction be commercial? 

Or are only charity auctions allowed?

So far, it looks like this would only be prohibited if there was a
link to a site somewhere.  Does giving directions to the auction
location qualify as a link to the site?  Even worse, how about a link
to their web site?

Does `Search on Ebay for item 634451642152361.4' consitute a link to
Ebay?  (I'm sure the answer will be `yes', but still ...)

| The FA posts not allowed are Commercial FA posts, such as eBay, and
| other auction sites.

If somebody were to set up a site just like Ebay, but that didn't
charge a percentage, and didn't make any money from things like banner
ads, would somebody selling something via that service that be
permitted?  (reading the charter suggests `yes', but reading people's
comments suggests `no, and I hate Ebay so much that we'll prohibit
anything even remotely like it.')

[ and for the record, I've never sold anything on Ebay or any similar
  sites, and very rarely do I ever buy things from there. ]

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
Captain Ahab just has to have his whale, didn't he?

In article <hackedaopslk.24ts.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
| On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:55:31 -0700, Craig may have said:
...
| > came up with 142156 items.  Now these are active auctions.  Assuming 
| > that most of these are for 7 days, that's 20308 per day.  If only one 
| > percent (1%) of these people posted even one ad on dfw.forsale that 
| > would be 203 posts PER DAY!  And I'm sure that the word would spread 
| > that it was now allowed.

austin.forsale is not as busy as dfw.forsale, and it does not prohibit
auction ads.  Yet it's not overrun with them ...

Some more data ...

Searching for `a' at
http://pages.ebay.com/Austin/index.html finds 31069 items.

Searching for `a' at
http://pages.ebay.com/Dallas/index.html finds 135954 items.

Hmm, that's a pretty big difference.  Maybe dfw.forsale.auctions would
be a prudent move ...

Using google to look at posts from the last month :

   dfw.forsale: 23,000
   austin.forsale: 15,000

{ are these figures correct?  They seem too high ... }

In any event, if austin.forsale were to be overrun with them, a new
newsgroup would probably be formed, and the guidelines amended.  But
for now, that's not been needed.

| *My* auctions alone would be over 2000 a month. 

If somebody posted to dfw.forsale 2000 times a month, even if they
weren't using Ebay, they'd be run out of town long before the month
was up.  You don't need to prohibit auction ads to stop that.

Actually, I wonder how many unique people listed those 20308/day items
on Ebay from D/FW ... it could be that there's a lot fewer sellers on
Ebay than the simple calculations suggest.

| > Perhaps I am over guessing the 1%.  Perhaps it would be closer to .5% 
| > Many ebay posters are either corporate (not allowed,)  or not computer 
| > literate enough to know what a NG is (much less how to set it up.)
| 
| Define *corporate* . Many posters to ebay post *lots* of auctions for a
| little extra cash. I can show you a few power-sellers with over 10K feedback
| that are nothing more then hobbiest. My uncle posts 100-200 a week but does
| it to clear out his shed and old parts, yet he buys 100-200 a week also.

Again, somebody would probably be lynched before they even posted 20
articles to dfw.forsale (in one day.)

| > I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them 
| > usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will 
| > be encountered.

A reasonable concern, especially considering how many D/FW Ebayers
there seems to be.

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
"Bother," said Pooh as he pushed Christopher Robin into the quicksand.

I don't see the need to complicate the NG name.

How about keeping it simple:  dfw.forauction

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article 
> <B2150B2F619FB14E.80E09187DE9BFDE1.46B6535AC57C93EA@lp.airnews.net>,
>  John Willis <jdwillis@airmail.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>The fact that many active participants in the dfw.forsale group seem
>>to have a deep-seated dislike of eBay and other commercial, online
>>auctions, is probably reason enough not to co-mingle the groups.
> 
> 
> How about a dfw.forsale.atauction newsgroup?
> 

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> 
> In article <uopqhh361at46c@corp.supernews.com>,
>  Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> > I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them
> > usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will
> > be encountered.
> 
> That's what filters are for.
> 

My newsreader doesn't support filters. Because of 
circumstances out of your control, that will not
be changing anytime soon.

JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

I would define "corporate" the same as the dfw.forsale charter defines it:

<quote>
3. Non  commercial  postings  only. dfw.forsale is restricted to
      individuals   ads.   This  is  not  a  commercial  newsgroup.
      Commercial includes by definition but not limited to:
         1. Home based business such as Amway distribution.
         2. Weekly garage sales.
         3. Repeated going out of business sales.
         4. Repetitive selling of the same items, leading to believe you 
  have  a  never  ending  supply  from a distribution source.
         5. Store  Sales,  large  and  small  including  home  based 
computer sales.
         6. Any  item  offered  for sale for which sales tax will be 
collected.
</quote>

In your case, I would believe #4 would suffice to catagorize you as 
commercial.


David wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 16:55:31 -0700, Craig may have said:
> 
>>I have been posting and reading in DFW forsale for approximately 6 years 
>>now.  I have had great experience as of yet.  Thanks for any and all 
>>work done to help keep running well.
>>
>>Ok, now that the brown nosing is over...
>>
>>I have never objected to the addition of ebay posts until now.  I did 
>>not realize the amount of sellers posting on ebay from dfw.  I just did 
>>a search for any items from the DFW area that had the word "a" in the 
>>subject or description (should be most, if not all items from DFW.)  It 
>>came up with 142156 items.  Now these are active auctions.  Assuming 
>>that most of these are for 7 days, that's 20308 per day.  If only one 
>>percent (1%) of these people posted even one ad on dfw.forsale that 
>>would be 203 posts PER DAY!  And I'm sure that the word would spread 
>>that it was now allowed.
> 
> 
> *My* auctions alone would be over 2000 a month. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>Perhaps I am over guessing the 1%.  Perhaps it would be closer to .5% 
>>Many ebay posters are either corporate (not allowed,)  or not computer 
>>literate enough to know what a NG is (much less how to set it up.)
> 
> 
> Define *corporate* . Many posters to ebay post *lots* of auctions for a
> little extra cash. I can show you a few power-sellers with over 10K feedback
> that are nothing more then hobbiest. My uncle posts 100-200 a week but does
> it to clear out his shed and old parts, yet he buys 100-200 a week also.
> 
> 
> 
>>I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them 
>>usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will 
>>be encountered.
> 
> 
> Along with the growth of eBay. That would mean more FA posts to dfw.forsale.
> 3 months ago a search for "Camaro" resulted in 94-99 pages. Now it results
> in 150-170 pages of results.. 
> 
> 

Why should users who feel they do not want to see auction items be 
forced to set uyp filters.  A seperate NG (i.e. dfw.auction, or 
dfw.forauction) would be a much better choice.

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <uopqhh361at46c@corp.supernews.com>,
>  Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of them 
>>usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that will 
>>be encountered.
> 
> 
> That's what filters are for.
> 

If anyone wants to determine the current number of 
auctions on eBay which are listed as being "from" DFW, 
just search eBay using the wildcard character, an 
asterisk (*)and restrict your search to the Dallas-Fort 
Worth area. About five minutes ago there were 147615 
currently running auctions found. Since auction times 
vary in duration, I leave it to you to determine how 
may are posted each day from the DFW area and to 
speculate how many may wind up in dfw.forsale if this 
"pro-auction" proposal were to be adopted.

Now, seven minutes later there are 147632 eBay DFW 
auctions going, a net gain of 17 auctions. And some 
must have closed in the same time span.

Louis

Louis Guion wrote:
> 
> If anyone wants to determine the current number of
> auctions on eBay which are listed as being "from" DFW,
> just search eBay using the wildcard character, an
> asterisk (*)and restrict your search to the Dallas-Fort
> Worth area. About five minutes ago there were 147615
> currently running auctions found. Since auction times
> vary in duration, I leave it to you to determine how
> may are posted each day from the DFW area and to
> speculate how many may wind up in dfw.forsale if this
> "pro-auction" proposal were to be adopted.
> 
> Now, seven minutes later there are 147632 eBay DFW
> auctions going, a net gain of 17 auctions. And some
> must have closed in the same time span.
> 
> Louis


It seems obvious to me that adding ebay auctions to
dfw.forsale has the potential of obliterating the
group. As there are no viable other groups to pick
up the legitimate sellers, that market would probably
just disappear. We need to keep this bull out of
the china shop.

JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

In article <uoqdj1ovm48ja0@corp.supernews.com>,
 Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:

> I don't see the need to complicate the NG name.

You also seem to have a problem following the OP's instructions.


> How about keeping it simple:  dfw.forauction

Because "for auction" is a variation on "for sale".

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

In article 
<EC61B3BB023FCFA2.8EDF5EC4FA4F4DD9.1C9C480641B35158@lp.airnews.net>,
 JazzMan <No_Spam@airmail.net> wrote:

> My newsreader doesn't support filters. Because of 
> circumstances out of your control, that will not
> be changing anytime soon.

You should get a real newsreader.  Why should others suffer just because 
you can't be bothered to get software intended for the purpose you're 
using it for?

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

In article <hackedaoqgf6.2lk0.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
| On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:40:12 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
| > In article <hackedaoprl1.230j.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
| >  
| >| Your not gettin to the point. Auction announcments are allowed in
| >| dfw.forsale, so this whole section has no relevance. As long as the are
| >| Auction announcments of *local* Auctions taking place.
| > 
| > Wouldn't these local auctions usually be conducted by somebody who
| > charges a fee or a percentage of the revenues?  In that case, wouldn't
| > the auction be commercial? 
| > 
| > Or are only charity auctions allowed?
| 
| The intent was to allow estate type auctions, Going out of Busn Auctions,
| etc etc. Not for Auction Houses to be posting their listings on a weekly
| basis.

There's the intent, and there's the charter.  Obviously the two differ.
 
| > So far, it looks like this would only be prohibited if there was a
| > link to a site somewhere.  Does giving directions to the auction
| > location qualify as a link to the site?  Even worse, how about a link
| > to their web site?
| > 
| > Does `Search on Ebay for item 634451642152361.4' consitute a link to
| > Ebay?  (I'm sure the answer will be `yes', but still ...)
| 
| Ebay is a Commercial Venue. This is an old subject that has been gone over
| and over again. All are readable via Google. 

Not really an answer to the question, but I'll assume that you really
meant to say `yes, that's a link.'

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com          How do I set a laser printer to stun?

In article <hackedaoqgof.2lk0.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
| On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 03:01:33 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
| 
| >| *My* auctions alone would be over 2000 a month. 
| > 
| > If somebody posted to dfw.forsale 2000 times a month, even if they
| > weren't using Ebay, they'd be run out of town long before the month
| > was up.  You don't need to prohibit auction ads to stop that.
| 
| Run out for what reason ? They are not violations of the charter.
| If I was moving back into an apt from my house, I'd have enough junk to post
| 2000 auctions a month for 3-4 months. Nothing I posted would be against the
| charter.

So, what you're telling me, is that if a single person were to post
2000 different items for sale to dfw.forsale in 2000 different posts,
over the course of a month, that the readers of dfw.forsale would not
do something to make it stop?  If so, I'm not sure I believe you.

| > Again, somebody would probably be lynched before they even posted 20
| > articles to dfw.forsale (in one day.)
| 
| Not if they had a valid list of items for sale. There is no reason too.

You're right, 20 may be too low of a number.  Let's try 200 posts in a
single day, though 20/day for a month would probably be plenty as
well.

How many ISPs do you know that wouldn't respond to people complaining
about that, even if each and every post was exactly within the charter
for the group?  (Even Altopia might even respond to that one!)

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
EARTH FIRST!  We'll mine the other planets later.

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> 
> In article
> <EC61B3BB023FCFA2.8EDF5EC4FA4F4DD9.1C9C480641B35158@lp.airnews.net>,
>  JazzMan <No_Spam@airmail.net> wrote:
> 
> > My newsreader doesn't support filters. Because of
> > circumstances out of your control, that will not
> > be changing anytime soon.
> 
> You should get a real newsreader.  Why should others suffer just because
> you can't be bothered to get software intended for the purpose you're
> using it for?
> 

Even if I got a new machine and a new, what you call a "real"
newsreader instead of the fake newsreader I'm using now, do
you have any idea how long it would take to download headers
for 142,000 headers for dfw.forsale every day over dialup?
We're talking hours, every day, just to get headers. Oh, and
how long would it take to process that many headers with my
"real" newsreader? How much memory and disk cache would I
need for that? Maybe you're really saying I should get a 
"real" computer and get "real" broadband? What other expensive
upgrades are you telling me, and others, to get so that we
don't "inconvenience" you? 

My software was intended for the purpose it is being
used for. See, even this message was posted with
my software, just like I intended.

JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

David wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:39:06 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> > In article <hackedaoqgof.2lk0.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com> wrote:
> >| On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 03:01:33 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> >|
> >| >| *My* auctions alone would be over 2000 a month.
> >| >
> >| > If somebody posted to dfw.forsale 2000 times a month, even if they
> >| > weren't using Ebay, they'd be run out of town long before the month
> >| > was up.  You don't need to prohibit auction ads to stop that.
> >|
> >| Run out for what reason ? They are not violations of the charter.
> >| If I was moving back into an apt from my house, I'd have enough junk to post
> >| 2000 auctions a month for 3-4 months. Nothing I posted would be against the
> >| charter.
> >
> > So, what you're telling me, is that if a single person were to post
> > 2000 different items for sale to dfw.forsale in 2000 different posts,
> > over the course of a month, that the readers of dfw.forsale would not
> > do something to make it stop?  If so, I'm not sure I believe you.
> 
> If I have enough junk to sell and I am in violation of no charter,
> Why can't I post what I have too sell ? Now if I was doing repeated posts of
> the same item over and over.. That would be an issue.
> 
> >
> >| > Again, somebody would probably be lynched before they even posted 20
> >| > articles to dfw.forsale (in one day.)
> >|
> >| Not if they had a valid list of items for sale. There is no reason too.
> >
> > You're right, 20 may be too low of a number.  Let's try 200 posts in a
> > single day, though 20/day for a month would probably be plenty as
> > well.
> >
> > How many ISPs do you know that wouldn't respond to people complaining
> > about that, even if each and every post was exactly within the charter
> > for the group?  (Even Altopia might even respond to that one!)
> >
> 
> I can name one for sure. And Altopia doen't have a working abuse@ that I have
> ever seen. So they don't count. Again, if the charter is not being broken,
> there is no reason any ISP should be notified. So what if I have lots of
> junk to sell. It's my junk and I have the right to post it all if I wanted.
> 

I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30 thousand
unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)

JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

In article <572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net>,
JazzMan  <See_my_sig@for_info> wrote:

| I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
| eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
| I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
| posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
| that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30 thousand
| unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
| 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)

You can do all that without involving Ebay at all.  Just post your
items for sale in dfw.forsale.  No auction, just straight sales.

David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
reading the charter, it would seem that it is.

-- 
Doug McLaren, dougmc@frenzy.com
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!

Doug McLaren wrote:
> 
> In article <572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net>,
> JazzMan  <See_my_sig@for_info> wrote:
> 
> | I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
> | eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
> | I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
> | posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
> | that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30 thousand
> | unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
> | 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)
> 
> You can do all that without involving Ebay at all.  Just post your
> items for sale in dfw.forsale.  No auction, just straight sales.
> 
> David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
> reading the charter, it would seem that it is.
> 

Actually, I think David was just playing devil's advocate, as am
I. If I were to develop the desire to sell that many of my items, 
it would be at a volume sufficiently small to avoid clogging up
dfw.forsale, as a simple courtesy to the many nice folks who 
populate that group.

The idea of using eBay would be for maximizing sales price.

JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

Craig wrote:
> 
> the variation of "for sale" was what I was going for.  The sugestion was
> merely that.  I have no objection to the other NG name,
> dfw.forsale.auction, as I will most likly not subscribe anyway.  I
> merely made a sugestion.
> 

That's why so many people who want to post eBay ads are against
a separate newgroup, they realize nobody would subscribe to a 
group with thousands of eBay ads. Many eBay posters seem to think
that forcing ads into groups that don't want them would increase
exposure and therefore price, but I think that's not correct.

> And I'm sorry, perhaps the brain is not working well this morning, but
> what is an OP and which instruction did I not follow.
> 

OP = Original Poster


JazzMan
-- 
***************************************
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net. 
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
***************************************

In article 
<A6EBD60C11DAAC6D.8622AFF6A8C72F33.22002E50F7E6FE55@lp.airnews.net>,
 JazzMan <No_Spam@airmail.net> wrote:

> Even if I got a new machine and a new, what you call a "real"
> newsreader instead of the fake newsreader I'm using now, do

Who said anything about a new machine?  I said a "real newsreader", 
instead of Netscape/Mozilla.


> you have any idea how long it would take to download headers
> for 142,000 headers for dfw.forsale every day over dialup?

Bogus argument.  No newsgroup, NONE, gets that many postings, and none 
of the DFW.* newsgroups would get more than say 10000 a day at most.

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

In article <uorvvj6b3bbh0f@corp.supernews.com>,
 Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:

> the variation of "for sale" was what I was going for.  The sugestion was 
> merely that.  I have no objection to the other NG name, 
> dfw.forsale.auction, as I will most likly not subscribe anyway.  I 
> merely made a sugestion.

Neither would I.  I didn't subscribe even when I lived in the area.

 
> And I'm sorry, perhaps the brain is not working well this morning, but 
> what is an OP and which instruction did I not follow.

Original Poster, and you argued based on the current charter, which he 
specifically disallowed, since he wants to change it.  That makes sense, 
because if the charter is changed, its current content is irrelevant.

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

the variation of "for sale" was what I was going for.  The sugestion was 
merely that.  I have no objection to the other NG name, 
dfw.forsale.auction, as I will most likly not subscribe anyway.  I 
merely made a sugestion.

And I'm sorry, perhaps the brain is not working well this morning, but 
what is an OP and which instruction did I not follow.

Howard S Shubs wrote:
> In article <uoqdj1ovm48ja0@corp.supernews.com>,
>  Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I don't see the need to complicate the NG name.
> 
> 
> You also seem to have a problem following the OP's instructions.
> 
> 
> 
>>How about keeping it simple:  dfw.forauction
> 
> 
> Because "for auction" is a variation on "for sale".
> 

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaoprl1.230j.david@nowhere...
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:28:07 GMT, Daniel Chenault may have said:
>
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 20:28:07 GMT, Daniel Chenault may have said:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Author wishes to open discussion regarding amending the current charter
of
> > the Usenet newsgroup dfw.forsale. Current charter may be found at
> > http://www.cirr.com/dfw/charters. Author proposes that discussion
continue
> > for 14 days from date of this post with a CFV on the 15th day.
>
> Not so fast :) You have to get the proposed charter approved by the admins
> of the dfw.* Cabal (tinc), before you can even think of a CFV. If the
admins
> refuse it, it's not gonna happen.

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

> > The section for which amendment is requested is "Intended Use of
> > dfw.forsale", item #6.5, to wit:
> >               5. (FA) For Auction
> >                  Local Auction announcements only for the dfw Area.
Items
> >                  available at an Auction, or Auction announcements.
Links
> >                  to Commercial Auction sites are not permitted. No
Public
> >                  Auctions shall be held in this newsgroup.
> > Proposed wording of above:
> >               5. (FA) For Auction
> >                  Local Auction announcements only for the dfw Area.
Items
> >                  available at an Auction, or Auction announcements. No
> >                  Public
> >                  Auctions shall be held in this newsgroup. FA posts must
> >                  adhere to all
> >                  relevant sections of this charter, specifically but not
> >                  limited to #3 in this section
> >                  (regarding non-commercial posts).
>
> To vague. Your opening up dfw.forsale to all the ebayers to flood their
> auctions.  Will never pass the CFV much less the Cabal(tinc)

All _DFW_ eBayers, yes.

> <snipped lots of stuff we have heard already>
>
>
> > In trying to understand why the restriction against auction posts, the
> > author came up with the following possible objections:
> > 1. It's not "for sale". The only tangible difference between an auction
and
> > an outright sale is how the sales price is determined. An item being
auction
> > is no different from an item that is for sale save for the determination
of
> > price. The author finds this distinction spurious and irrelevant.
>
> Your not gettin to the point. Auction announcments are allowed in
> dfw.forsale, so this whole section has no relevance. As long as the are
> Auction announcments of *local* Auctions taking place. The FA posts not
> allowed are Commercial FA posts, such as eBay, and other auction sites.

No, I'm not missing the point. eBay, itself, is a commercial enterprise. The
individual who lives in DFW who is using eBay as a service is not a
business. A dual standard is being drawn:
1. A physical auction in the DFW area is allowed. Yet that physical auction
is being run by an auction house that is a commercial entity. This is
allowed so long as it is an individual doing the posting.
2. A virtual auction for an item physically in the DFW area is not allowed.

Do you see why the distinction you just drew is contradictory? Yes, eBay is
a commercial enterprise. So is DFW Auction Inc.

> > 2. It will invite a "spew" of posts (from thousands of individual users
as
> > distinct from a spew of posts from one user), drowning the newsgroup.
While
> > this may indeed happen that would only show that a new newsgroup,
> > dfw.auction, is called for (in looking through the archives it seems
this
> > has been raised as a possibility before but there is not empirical
evidence
> > to support it). Market activity is not, in itself, a bad thing. Stifling
an
> > otherwise free market is, however, a bad thing.
>
> If you want a dfw.auction newsgroup, then follow the steps to have it
created.
> Don't try to change dfw.forsale to suit ones needs. As someone who does
sell
> on eBay, in the area of 3000 auctions a month. If dfw.forsale allowed such
> posts, I'd be posting my auctions there. But as I feel USENET is just
that,
> usenet, and not the "WWW" I don't feel posts to such websites should be
> allowed. I come to usenet to read/search for items that are for sale, not
a
> listing of an auction I have to open a browser to go see what is FOR
AUCTION
> with a ONE CENT opening bid and a hidden RESV value.

I don't know that a separate group is needed.

I understand the distinction you are drawing. However, information, whether
posted in usenet or WWW, is information. I must say that it is a distinction
that is of your own creation.

While your opinion is just as valuable as everyone else's, please be aware
that it is an opinion, not a technological fact or reasoned rationale. How
you choose to view the different protocols and use them in your own world is
your choice; 'tis not in the least bit fair to force that subjective
viewpoint on others.

"Howard S Shubs" <howard@shubs.net> wrote in message
news:howard-ED9C64.20120521092002@enews.newsguy.com...
> In article
> <B2150B2F619FB14E.80E09187DE9BFDE1.46B6535AC57C93EA@lp.airnews.net>,
>  John Willis <jdwillis@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> > The fact that many active participants in the dfw.forsale group seem
> > to have a deep-seated dislike of eBay and other commercial, online
> > auctions, is probably reason enough not to co-mingle the groups.
>
> How about a dfw.forsale.atauction newsgroup?

That's an option that is outside the scope of this discussion. I move we
hold off on that one till after this proposal has been resolved one way or
the other.

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaoqgf6.2lk0.david@nowhere...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 02:40:12 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> > In article <hackedaoprl1.230j.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com>
wrote:
> >
> >| Your not gettin to the point. Auction announcments are allowed in
> >| dfw.forsale, so this whole section has no relevance. As long as the are
> >| Auction announcments of *local* Auctions taking place.
> >
> > Wouldn't these local auctions usually be conducted by somebody who
> > charges a fee or a percentage of the revenues?  In that case, wouldn't
> > the auction be commercial?
> >
> > Or are only charity auctions allowed?
>
> The intent was to allow estate type auctions, Going out of Busn Auctions,
> etc etc. Not for Auction Houses to be posting their listings on a weekly
> basis.

While that may have been the intent, I can't see anything in the charter
that specifies this. It's extremely difficult to address, or enforce, an
unstated intent. Thus the argument is out-of-band.

> > So far, it looks like this would only be prohibited if there was a
> > link to a site somewhere.  Does giving directions to the auction
> > location qualify as a link to the site?  Even worse, how about a link
> > to their web site?
> >
> > Does `Search on Ebay for item 634451642152361.4' consitute a link to
> > Ebay?  (I'm sure the answer will be `yes', but still ...)
>
> Ebay is a Commercial Venue. This is an old subject that has been gone over
> and over again. All are readable via Google.

Yes, eBay is indeed a commercial venture. I've seen a number of posts for
estate sales and been to a few; they were being run by commercial auction
houses. If the criteria is "no commercial venture, at all, period" then no
estate auctions at all since I've yet to see one run by a private
individual; auctioneering is a profession. The rationale "eBay is a
commercial venture" is an exclusionary argument that is only being used
partially since it can be shown conclusively that _other_ commercial
ventures running auctions are allowed. Thus the argument seems to be more of
an anti-eBay sentiment and, sorry, that particular argument is completely
irrelevant. That you (third-person generic) may not like eBay is not at all
important to anyone else.

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaoqgud.2lk0.david@nowhere...
> On Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:26:13 -0700, Craig may have said:
> > Why should users who feel they do not want to see auction items be
> > forced to set uyp filters.  A seperate NG (i.e. dfw.auction, or
> > dfw.forauction) would be a much better choice.
> >
>
> I agree, but nobody wants to take the steps to have such an group created.
> Even as a Power Seller on eBay, I do NOT want to see Auctions in
dfw.forsale

I understand that, but _why_?

I DO want to see auctions in dfw.forsale. There, I just completely countered
your argument leaving us at a loggerhead.

Again, _why_?

"JazzMan" <No_Spam@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:EC61B3BB023FCFA2.8EDF5EC4FA4F4DD9.1C9C480641B35158@lp.airnews.net...
> Howard S Shubs wrote:
> >
> > In article <uopqhh361at46c@corp.supernews.com>,
> >  Craig <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I over all don't object to the ebay posts.  I actually find some of
them
> > > usefull, however, I am concerned of the rapid growth of posts that
will
> > > be encountered.
> >
> > That's what filters are for.
> >
>
> My newsreader doesn't support filters. Because of
> circumstances out of your control, that will not
> be changing anytime soon.

I dont' mean to sound crass or rude, but that's a personal problem. It's not
my problem, it's not Howard's problem, it's your problem. It's not my place,
or Howard's, or anyone else's, to deal with it. _We_ have newsreaders that
support filters. So, I would venture to say, does just about everyone else.

"Craig" <craigmanning@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uoqdtgacuccla0@corp.supernews.com...
> Why should users who feel they do not want to see auction items be
> forced to set uyp filters.  A seperate NG (i.e. dfw.auction, or
> dfw.forauction) would be a much better choice.

Possibly, possibly. That's a separate discussion.

To address your point: why should users be forced to setup a filter if they
don't want to see forsale ads about cars? A separate NG (i.e.
dfw.carsforsale) would be a much better choice. Exact same argument you just
proposed.

It's not like setting up a filter requires a CS degree and forty hours of
development work. Heck, using filters is almost required to use Usenet to a
significant degree.

"JazzMan" <No_Spam@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net...
> David wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 15:39:06 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> > > In article <hackedaoqgof.2lk0.david@nowhere>, David  <david@cirr.com>
wrote:
> > >| On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 03:01:33 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> > >|
> > >| >| *My* auctions alone would be over 2000 a month.
> > >| >
> > >| > If somebody posted to dfw.forsale 2000 times a month, even if they
> > >| > weren't using Ebay, they'd be run out of town long before the month
> > >| > was up.  You don't need to prohibit auction ads to stop that.
> > >|
> > >| Run out for what reason ? They are not violations of the charter.
> > >| If I was moving back into an apt from my house, I'd have enough junk
to post
> > >| 2000 auctions a month for 3-4 months. Nothing I posted would be
against the
> > >| charter.
> > >
> > > So, what you're telling me, is that if a single person were to post
> > > 2000 different items for sale to dfw.forsale in 2000 different posts,
> > > over the course of a month, that the readers of dfw.forsale would not
> > > do something to make it stop?  If so, I'm not sure I believe you.
> >
> > If I have enough junk to sell and I am in violation of no charter,
> > Why can't I post what I have too sell ? Now if I was doing repeated
posts of
> > the same item over and over.. That would be an issue.
> >
> > >
> > >| > Again, somebody would probably be lynched before they even posted
20
> > >| > articles to dfw.forsale (in one day.)
> > >|
> > >| Not if they had a valid list of items for sale. There is no reason
too.
> > >
> > > You're right, 20 may be too low of a number.  Let's try 200 posts in a
> > > single day, though 20/day for a month would probably be plenty as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > How many ISPs do you know that wouldn't respond to people complaining
> > > about that, even if each and every post was exactly within the charter
> > > for the group?  (Even Altopia might even respond to that one!)
> > >
> >
> > I can name one for sure. And Altopia doen't have a working abuse@ that I
have
> > ever seen. So they don't count. Again, if the charter is not being
broken,
> > there is no reason any ISP should be notified. So what if I have lots of
> > junk to sell. It's my junk and I have the right to post it all if I
wanted.
> >
>
> I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
> eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
> I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
> posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
> that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30 thousand
> unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
> 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)

Okay, for the sake of argument let's entertain this.

So the charter currently reads no auction posts. Yet you want to sell your
stuff. So you take the time to list 8,000 unique objects and figure out a
price for them. You then post these items to dfw.forsale. The header reads
FS: <item>.

The only, the _only_, difference, is the subject line showing FS instead of
FA. The content has not changed, the traffic has not changed. It's a
spurious argument.

"Doug McLaren" <dougmc@frenzy.com> wrote in message
news:c_mj9.324648$Yd.12036658@twister.austin.rr.com...
> In article
<572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net>,
> JazzMan  <See_my_sig@for_info> wrote:
>
> | I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
> | eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
> | I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
> | posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
> | that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30 thousand
> | unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
> | 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)
>
> You can do all that without involving Ebay at all.  Just post your
> items for sale in dfw.forsale.  No auction, just straight sales.
>
> David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
> reading the charter, it would seem that it is.

True, very true. So, let me get this straight:

A potential 8,000 individual posts is okay and fine, as long as it's FS and
not FA.

Why is that so? I truly don't understand the difference: 8,000 posts is
8,000 posts. The only difference is FA instead of FS. That sounds more like
a bias against auctions than a reasoned argument.

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaos8g8.13or.david@nowhere...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:21:12 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> > In article
<572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net>,
> > JazzMan  <See_my_sig@for_info> wrote:
> >
> >| I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell on
> >| eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
> >| I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of auction
> >| posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what does
> >| that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30
thousand
> >| unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the first
> >| 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.   :)
> >
> > You can do all that without involving Ebay at all.  Just post your
> > items for sale in dfw.forsale.  No auction, just straight sales.
> >
> > David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
> > reading the charter, it would seem that it is.
>
> You can post all you want to dfw.forsale. Just no referance to ebay.
> if you sell the item you can always close the auction on ebay early.
> The reason people post links or Auction # of an ebay post it to try and
get
> bids on the item. dfw.forsale is not an advertising venue for ebay and
will
> never get that approvel.

I believe David has finally voiced his true objection.

If eBay itself were to post to dfw.forsale THAT would be using dfw.forsale
as an advertising venue. However, if _I_ post a link to an auction then
dfw.forsale is _not_ being used as an advertising venue for anybody but me.
As an individual I am allowed that usage. That the auction is being held on
eBay is a totally irrelevant piece of information. This discussion is not
about eBay, it's about auction posts. _Where_ the virtual auction takes
place is of no consequence so long as the poster and the item are both in
DFW.

Using arguments against eBay as a reference for anti- arguments is
out-of-band.

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaos9rb.13or.david@nowhere...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 19:51:15 GMT, Daniel Chenault may have said:
> >> > In trying to understand why the restriction against auction posts,
the
> >> > author came up with the following possible objections:
> >> > 1. It's not "for sale". The only tangible difference between an
auction
> > and
> >> > an outright sale is how the sales price is determined. An item being
> > auction
> >> > is no different from an item that is for sale save for the
determination
> > of
> >> > price. The author finds this distinction spurious and irrelevant.
> >>
> >> Your not gettin to the point. Auction announcments are allowed in
> >> dfw.forsale, so this whole section has no relevance. As long as the are
> >> Auction announcments of *local* Auctions taking place. The FA posts not
> >> allowed are Commercial FA posts, such as eBay, and other auction sites.
> >
> > No, I'm not missing the point. eBay, itself, is a commercial enterprise.
The
> > individual who lives in DFW who is using eBay as a service is not a
> > business. A dual standard is being drawn:
> > 1. A physical auction in the DFW area is allowed. Yet that physical
auction
> > is being run by an auction house that is a commercial entity. This is
> > allowed so long as it is an individual doing the posting.
>
> The FA tag was added to be used just as it says in the charter.
> For Auction announcements or Items available at an Auction in the
> DFW area. As I said before to let people announce Public Auctions be
> announced such as Estate and G.o.B. Auctions. These would be limited to
the
> DFW area. eBay is NOT limited to the DFW area and is unrelated to the dfw
> area. All my auctions at this time have a REGION of DFW. But I sell to a
DFW
> user MAYBE once every 400 auctions. If you post to ebay you are not
limiting
> your sale to the DFW area. Anyone can bid on your Ebay auction. You maybe
> located in the DFW area, the Item may be located in the DFW area, you may
> say in your acution WILL NOT SHIP, ok so those who bid in Wash. have to
> arrange pickup on theor own.

So, is there something I'm missing here? I post a forsale ad in dfw.forsale.
I'm a resident of dfw. A guy up in Saskatchewan does a google search for the
item and finds my post; are you saying I cannot sell to him because he's not
a DFW resident?

The charter defines who can post; it says absolutely nothing about who can
read and respond to those posts (responding offline is far and away far
outside the charter's bounds).

> FA Tags are used for *LOCAL* AUctions..
> Ebay is not a local venue.

If the seller and the item are in DFW, the auction is local. The physical
location of the servers housing the auction is irrelevant; such is the
virtual world.

> > 2. A virtual auction for an item physically in the DFW area is not
allowed.
>
> Ya.. so..

Yet it should be. Is it my fault, as a DFW resident, that there is no online
auction house located in Dallas? No, it isn't, so why do I, as a user, have
to pay for that lack when other services exist? And, again, I truly do not
understand what eBay's physical location has to do with it.

> > Do you see why the distinction you just drew is contradictory? Yes, eBay
is
> > a commercial enterprise. So is DFW Auction Inc.
>
> No it's not.. DFW Auction Inc is a LOCAL Auction House. Yes it's
commercial.
> Ebay is not local, it's a worldwide venue.

But, wait, the charter so NO commercial posts, so we run into yet another
contradiction. What is with this geographical bias you are holding? Besides,
it's not eBay posting the FA notice, it's a DFW resident and, as the charter
says, dfw.forsale is for the residents of DFW.

> <snipped>
>
> >
> > I don't know that a separate group is needed.
>
> If you want auctions from places such as eBay, it is. It's never gonna get
> approved for dfw.forsale.

You say that with authority. Care to elucidate?

> > I understand the distinction you are drawing. However, information,
whether
> > posted in usenet or WWW, is information. I must say that it is a
distinction
> > that is of your own creation.
>
> Nope..

"Nope" is not a reasoned contradiction, it is unresponsive, only barely
contextual and lends absolutely nothing to the discussion. It gives me a
mental idea of someone holding his arms crossed, lower lip pouted out,
repeating "nonononon" over and over. Sorry, David, but I fail to see how any
intelligent adult interested in a flow of ideas and attempting to reach a
consensus can possibly take such a stance seriously.

> > While your opinion is just as valuable as everyone else's, please be
aware
> > that it is an opinion, not a technological fact or reasoned rationale.
How
> > you choose to view the different protocols and use them in your own
world is
> > your choice; 'tis not in the least bit fair to force that subjective
> > viewpoint on others.
>
> I'm not forcing anything. You asked for opinions and reasons for them.
> I gave mine.  I'm also giveing reasons I've been told when this came up
> serveral times before, and when the original charter was proposed. I've
been
> here already 4-5 times, and I know what's going to happen. You gonna go
> through this CFD for a few weeks, find something you or other think is a
> good thing[tm] and go after a CFV. The dfw.cabal(tinc) is gonna shoot it
all
> down and walk away and tell you to try again. Bottom line is real simple.

I did a search on dfw.cabal(tinc) and could find nothing. Who constitutes
this "dfw.cabal(tinc)" and under what authority do they derive the power you
cite?

> 1. Auctions such as eBay and Yahoo will never be allowed in the
dfw.forsale
>    newsgroup.
>
> If you think the FA tag is a double standard, fine, have a CFD to have it
> removed from the charter as invalid. You want eBay auctions to be able to
be
> posted to a dfw.* group. Work to have a new group created. The steps are
> located here: http://www.cirr.com/dfw/dfw-create.html

I do not yet believe that a new group is needed. As far as I can tell the
current structure is more than adequate to handle the proposed change.

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaosam6.151g.david@nowhere...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:16:45 GMT, Daniel Chenault may have said:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >> David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
> >> reading the charter, it would seem that it is.
> >
> > True, very true. So, let me get this straight:
> >
> > A potential 8,000 individual posts is okay and fine, as long as it's FS
and
> > not FA.
> >
> > Why is that so? I truly don't understand the difference: 8,000 posts is
> > 8,000 posts. The only difference is FA instead of FS. That sounds more
like
> > a bias against auctions than a reasoned argument.
>
> Keyword : Commercial Venue.
>
> The dfw.Cabal(tinc) will never approve the posting of anything for a
> commercial venue. The FA tag was added for the few exceptions of local
> auctions as I've stated 3-5 times already.

So, what you're saying is that all are equal, but some are more equal than
others. The bottom line is that the charter does not truly exist at all and
thus be completely ignored.

In article <hackedaos8g8.13or.david@nowhere>, David <david@cirr.com> 
wrote:

> You can post all you want to dfw.forsale. Just no referance to ebay.
> if you sell the item you can always close the auction on ebay early.
> The reason people post links or Auction # of an ebay post it to try and get
> bids on the item. dfw.forsale is not an advertising venue for ebay and will
> never get that approvel. 

eBay is not advertising.  The person trying to sell his stuff is.  
There's a difference.  If that person is being obnoxious about it, 
reposting over and over, that's a matter to deal with now, in the 
charter, to prevent it: "no reposting!"

-- 
Today, on Paper-view: The World Origami Championship

"David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
news:hackedaoscdv.16ka.david@nowhere...
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 20:22:11 GMT, Daniel Chenault may have said:
> > "David" <david@cirr.com> wrote in message
> > news:hackedaos8g8.13or.david@nowhere...
> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:21:12 GMT, Doug McLaren may have said:
> >> > In article
> ><572C71B8C374EC96.DD34FE2D91B44671.C74B3BAF3F10971F@lp.airnews.net>,
> >> > JazzMan  <See_my_sig@for_info> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >| I've got approximately eight thousand unique items that I can sell
on
> >> >| eBay, with one post per item per sale that I can put in dfw.forsale.
> >> >| I'd want to put all those items up within the first 30 days of
auction
> >> >| posts being allowed in dfw.forsale. So between me and David, what
does
> >> >| that total up to? I bet that between us we can easily put 20-30
> > thousand
> >> >| unique one-time auction announcements in dfw.forsale within the
first
> >> >| 30 days. That'll kill dfw.forsale and all this bickering for sure.
:)
> >> >
> >> > You can do all that without involving Ebay at all.  Just post your
> >> > items for sale in dfw.forsale.  No auction, just straight sales.
> >> >
> >> > David seems to believe that this is prefectly ok -- and by only
> >> > reading the charter, it would seem that it is.
> >>
> >> You can post all you want to dfw.forsale. Just no referance to ebay.
> >> if you sell the item you can always close the auction on ebay early.
> >> The reason people post links or Auction # of an ebay post it to try and
> > get
> >> bids on the item. dfw.forsale is not an advertising venue for ebay and
> > will
> >> never get that approvel.
> >
> > I believe David has finally voiced his true objection.
>
> I never voiced a FALSE objection.

True, and that accusation was not intended. Perhaps an obfuscated opinion
would be more correct.

> > If eBay itself were to post to dfw.forsale THAT would be using
dfw.forsale
> > as an advertising venue.
>
> yes
>
> > However, if _I_ post a link to an auction then
> > dfw.forsale is _not_ being used as an advertising venue for anybody but
me.
>
> Yes it is. your useing dfw.forsale as a advertising venue for your ebay
posts.

But _I_ am an individual, _I_ am not a commercial entity. I derive no money
from eBay other than the sale of the item. In fact, I have to pay eBay to
use their service. When I post a FS to dfw.forsale I am using the ng as an
advertising venue. Every single post in the ng is an advertisement. If I
post an Adaptec SCSI controller for sale, using your argument of extension,
the post is a commercial post advertising Adaptec.

> > As an individual I am allowed that usage.
>
> No your spamming. Also against the charter.

You're referring back to the current charter which is a circular argument.

> > That the auction is being held on
> > eBay is a totally irrelevant piece of information.
>
> Ok. Yahoo, Bidpoint, Any any other Auction venue.
> And it is relevant.

How is it relevant?

> > This discussion is not
> > about eBay, it's about auction posts. _Where_ the virtual auction takes
> > place is of no consequence so long as the poster and the item are both
in
> > DFW.
>
> Your right. Its NOT about ebay, but that's what everyone referances to.
> You can use Yahoo as a referance for all I care. And no, it's about the
> point eBay/Yahoo/WhoEVER is a COMMERCIAL VENUE.

And I contend that the vehicle is irrelevant. So long as the poster and the
item are local to DFW the needs of the group's definition have been met.

> > Using arguments against eBay as a reference for anti- arguments is
> > out-of-band.
>
> Turn my words around all you want. But that is not what I said.
> I said exactly what i meant. I'll quote the words of a dfw.cabal(tinc)
> admin when this was brought up before.

I did not turn words around; you clarified above that eBay was used only as
an object example rather than a specific one. It was the specificity to
which I was objecting. Since you have clarified that point the objection is
retracted.

> ====
> Well, I have a hard time generating any desire within my
> self to support this.. I really don't feel like providing a free
> advertising mechanism for folks who have advertising budgets..
>
> If someone can propose a charter tha doesn't end up
> having me subsidize Fry's or CompUSA, I'll consider it.
> ====

Whoever this person is he seems to have a hard time separating the poster
from the vehicle. What is the _primary_ intent of dfw.forsale? Although not
specifically spelled out, the charter implies that the intent is for
residents of DFW and surrounding areas to have a regionalized ng upon which
they may hawk their non-commerical wares. That some of those residents
choose to use an auction format rather than a definitive fixed-price format
is an individual decision; I do not feel it is the place of these unnamed
sysadmins to dictate to the user community how a resource setup for the
specific use of the community is to be used (not to that extent).

> You opened this CFD to discuss the FA tag and having it changed.
> If you wish to sit back and twist everyones words to suit your means your
> going to have a very hard time doing anything. I for one am not going to
> argue a point that will never fly. You've been given reasons and comments,
> but you argue each one of the issues as invalid *to you*. It's not a
matter
> of why you think or *I* thinks. I've pointed out several times your
waisting
> your time over this issue as the dfw.Cabal (tinc) will never approve it.

Again, I have done a search on dfw.Cabal (tinc) and can find no information
on it. I do not recognize the authority of a faceless entity that rules from
the shadows. If you look you will see that each and every single aspect of
the internet that is governed and regulated is done so with a person's name
attached; there is not a single RFC that is written by an anonymous
individual. This underscores an important point; the internet belongs to
everybody, everybody has a say and there shall be no undermining of that
intent by anonymous individuals. I therefore state publicly that I do not
recognize the rule of such a cabal and indeed refuse to recognize the
existence of such. If such does exist than the community at large needs to
take steps to abolish it.

David, I have not twisted anyone's words around. I have been careful to
respond to each point. I read, I digest, I respond. I do so with a clear
head and honest intent. What I feel you don't like, and what you refer to as
"word-twisting" is that I recognize dancing around the issue for what it is
and I call it when I see it. It is not my problem if you don't like that.

And, specifically, refer back to my requested first point of order: no ad
hominems. I truly resent your implication and feel you are completely unable
to support said allegation. Therefore I feel that you should now recuse
yourself from further participation in the discussion as you have
self-qualified yourself as being unable to participate in the free exchange
of ideas in a public forum.