🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3fh2sb$9j5@news.cais.com> jsdy@cais2.cais.com (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
>To J. D. Falk, Keeper of the FAQ: perhaps there should be something in
>there about keeping rude language and comments to a minimum?  And
>another about how "Caveat Emptor" should be kept in mind for ALL
>postings here, so that it is  t o t a l l y  unnecessary to warn anyone
>that any one posting (unless it's habitual) is not all it seems?  You
>can wordsmith these suggestions as you will.

Sorry to perpetuate this thread, but I think Joe is way off base here...

Anyone who reads this newsgroup knows that many of our readers are
novices who have little to no understanding of the relationship
between condition and price.  What I like about this group is that
just about every question asked, no matter how naive, is answered
courteously.  This tells me that the readers of this group care
about the reputation of their hobby.

I believe that warning novice users to be cautious about particular
offers for sale is a good thing to do, no matter how much it may
offend prospective sellers.  The original offer said nothing about
grades and had no return policy, therefore there was no way to
determine whether or not the seller was offering a fair deal.
I thought the original response to this posting was entirely
appropriate in pointing this fact out.

As far as rude language goes, I would just like to point out
that almost every article containing rude language was posted
by the original seller.  Granted, she was apparently quoting
from mail she had received ("someone called me a ..."), but
most of the objectionable words originally appeared in her
posts.  Go back and take another look...

- Steve

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Phillips                                  phillips@prepress.pps.com
Prepress Solutions, Inc., Billerica, MA