Re: What Constitutes SPAM?
From: Robert Morien (PhD_failure_at_nousefulinfo.com)
Date: 01/13/05
- Next message: Robert Morien: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Previous message: Robert Morien: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- In reply to: Joel M. Eichen: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Next in thread: StovePipe: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:00:14 -0800
In article <f68du01acv8ej5ntmrjmk705oig6bcpqvb@4ax.com>,
Joel M. Eichen <joeleichen@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:24 GMT, "Gregory P. Cole, B.S., D.D.S.
> \(Flap\)" <drgregorycole.dds@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> RULES:
>
> Hi Greg!
>
> Good question!
>
> I suppose someone who surfs over here and makes one post like, "Oh my
> dental bills were so high until I found,
>
> www.dentaldiscountplansforripoff.com.
>
> Well W_B is gonna report him and perhaps validly so. Too much
> gratuitous spam in NGs is frowned upon.
Please explain what "un-gratuitous spam" might be. In the online world,
it is either spam or on-topic (with the casual exception of announced OT
posts and the occassional mistake).
>
> Usenet is better without too much commercial stuff.
There are numerous groups where commercial stuff is accepted, tolerated
or the reason for the groups existence. That's why you are encouraged to
read a groups charter or FAQ.
>
> But what of an aggregator who grabs content with no attribution,
> massages it a bit, and then passes it off as his own?
You mean a copyright violater? Check up the consequences of copyright
violation.
>
> Would that be a good business model?
If it is a business model then it would be a commercial post which makes
it spam. Is spamming a good business model?
>
> Supposing the guy did not like Mark Tarka and suddenly he filtered all
> of Mark's posts?
He'd be exercising his constitutional rights, possibly even some
commercial rights.
>
> Jeez, that reminds me of the Soviets who simply prohibited the press
> from keeping reports of airplane crashes out of the papers.
>
> Could that happen at USENET?
>
> You betcha ....
>
> Usenet is uncensored discussion
Generally.
. Yes individuals can chose to ignore a
> poster, but what if someone unilaterally decided to block all of
> someone's posts? In my opinion that is far worse that some commercial
> stuff.
Rule # 1: Spammers always lie
Rule # 2: If a spammer tells you something else, see rule #1.
Rule # 3: Spammers are stupid.
>
> More later.
>
> I have a feeling this OFF-TOPIC discussion will be very interesting.
>
> Joel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> This brings up an interesting subject.
> >>
> >> Without commercial interests, the usenet or bulletin boards, was an
> >> extremely costly affair. I recall buddies who paid hundreds of dollars
> >> per month for a simple messaging system. They used it for business
> >> purposes, not for chatting endlessly.
> >>
> >> One guy was a radio show talk host who used it to get ideas for his
> >> show.
> >>
> >> Me too.
> >>
> >> I use the resources consistently for ideas. Therefore I am quite
> >> tolerant of people who want to support it with some
> >> informational/cxommercial blending.
> >>
> >> This is not SPAM. Spam to me means too much of anything is no good.
> >>
> >> Joel
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
- Next message: Robert Morien: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Previous message: Robert Morien: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- In reply to: Joel M. Eichen: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Next in thread: StovePipe: "Re: What Constitutes SPAM?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
