notifying particular thread to wake up.

[Mike Schilling]

It is a norm of usenetters going back ten years or more.

Then you can point to occasions where someone other than you has espoused
it.

 

[bbound]

[snip a bunch of bullshit, including incorrectly associating me with
the name "paul" again]

**** off.

Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
much googling to find:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
newbs)

http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm

Where we see language like:

"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
commercial postings."

"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial postings should
only be posted in those newsgroups whose charters/FAQ's explicitly
permit them."

"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
postings in its charter."

The general and longstanding disdain of usenetters for commercial
postings is very widely known; I'm amazed that any of you would claim
otherwise.

Google searches for queries like "usenet commercial disdain" or
"usenet "commercial postings"" will turn up plenty of other examples
as well as the three I cited.

Satisfied, arnehole?

 

[bbound]

[snip attack post]

Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
arnehole implied about me are false. Pay them no heed and ignore
anything else he says about me. Go on about your business. Good day.

 

[bbound]

Then you can point to occasions where someone other than you has espoused
it.

Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
much googling to find:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
newbs)

http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm

Where we see language like:

"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
commercial postings."

"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial postings should
only be posted in those newsgroups whose charters/FAQ's explicitly
permit them."

"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
postings in its charter."

The general and longstanding disdain of usenetters for commercial
postings is very widely known; I'm amazed that any of you would claim
otherwise.

Google searches for queries like "usenet commercial disdain" or
"usenet "commercial postings"" will turn up plenty of other examples
as well as the three I cited.

 

[Lew]

"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
postings in its charter."

The posting about which you complained was not a commercial posting. The
citation completely fails to support your point.

 

[Lew]

Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
arnehole implied about me are false. Pay them no heed and ignore
anything else he says about me. Go on about your business. Good day.

PLONK!

 

[Tim Smith]

This is the first time I've heard of it, in over 20 years of Usenet
participation.

I've got over 23 years on usenet, and never heard of it, either.

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

[snip a bunch of bullshit, including incorrectly associating me with
the name "paul" again]

**** off.

Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
much googling to find:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/posting-rules/part1/

http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
newbs)

http://www.emsdesigns.com/aup.htm

Where we see language like:

"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
commercial postings."

....

What do commercial postings have to do with third party mentions of
relevant paid resources in on-topic technical articles? Even by your own
postings, there is a clear distinction, because a commercial posting in
a non-business newsgroup cannot be cured by merely labeling it as
commercial, or adding references to non-commercial resources.

Patricia

 

[Mike Schilling]

Fine. You want me to do your research for you? Here. It didn't take
much googling to find:

http://www.sodak.com/usenet_postings.htm (a specific ISP's guidelines,
but it's not their TOS; they are just explaining usenet norms to
newbs)

Where we see language like:

"There exists an alternative hierarchy called "biz" specifically for
commercial postings."

"Advertisements, solicitations, or other commercial postings should
only be posted in those newsgroups whose charters/FAQ's explicitly
permit them."

"Posting commercial messages to a USENET group is a violation of this
policy unless that specific USENET group has invited commercial
postings in its charter."

If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
gutenberg.org.

 

[Mike Schilling]

Go away, arnehole. To third parties reading this: the nasty things
arnehole implied about me are false.

But the ones you reveal every time you post are unrefuted.

 

[Daniel Pitts]

If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
gutenberg.org.

Ha! Made me laugh.

 

[bbound]

The posting about which you complained was not a commercial posting.

Yes, it was. It was an ad, for crying out loud. And the citations
(plural) DO support the statement that was currently being disputed,
namely that commercial messages are generally disliked on Usenet,
*regardless* of whether you consider that much earlier posting to be
an example of such.

 

[bbound]

What do commercial postings have to do with third party mentions of
relevant paid resources in on-topic technical articles?

The post in question contained nothing *but* an ad for a book. There
was no other information in it whatsoever. The only things
distinguishing it from run-of-the-mill spam were that it was targeted
and that it didn't come from a fly-by-night net account.

Targeted advertising is still advertising.

 

[bbound]

If anyone had been discussing commercial messages those would be relevant.
Tell you what: go to rec.arts.books, and when someone recommends a recent
novel, insist that they also recommend a similar novel that's available at
gutenberg.org.

There's a big difference and you fucking know it.

Rec.arts.books obviously revolves around books, which you tend to have
to pay for.

Comp.lang.java.programmer revolves around Java, which you tend to not
have to pay for. Moreover, a huge amount of very useful information
about it can be found on the net for free. It is by no means necessary
for the OP to purchase a book to get what he wants out of Java, though
it remains a valid choice. It is certainly questionable if there's an
attempt (whether active or simply through neglect) to make him aware
of only those options for proceeding that happen to part him with some
money, however, given the profusion of free sources of information
that should be his first resort.

Yes, I know, you don't like that. You and a lot of other people see
any free information as somehow "stealing" livelihood from poor
starving corporations such as major publishers and software companies,
and hate to see people only using paid resources as a last resort. Not
that I know why, when most of you don't work for the particular
companies that stand to lose. A "sinking tide grounds all boats" type
of fear, that the industry you're in will suffer in general I suppose?
Regardless, if the OP would have been satisfied with free information
from e.g. Sun's Java Tutorial and ends up spending money
unnecessarily, then he's been ripped off, and whether you personally
collect a dime because of it or not, if you helped bring those
circumstances about then you're no better than a common thief.

 

[bbound]

But the ones you reveal every time you post are unrefuted.

I don't post any nasty claims about myself, so your statement is
vacuous.

 

[Mike Schilling]

There's a big difference and you fucking know it.

"I'm right, and you know I'm right, and you're just being mean to me."
Pretty weak stuff.

Rec.arts.books obviously revolves around books, which you tend to have
to pay for.

Comp.lang.java.programmer revolves around Java, which you tend to not
have to pay for. Moreover, a huge amount of very useful information
about it can be found on the net for free. It is by no means necessary
for the OP to purchase a book to get what he wants out of Java, though
it remains a valid choice. It is certainly questionable if there's an
attempt (whether active or simply through neglect) to make him aware
of only those options for proceeding that happen to part him with some
money, however, given the profusion of free sources of information
that should be his first resort.

For many of us, spending twenty or thirty bucks to buy a book that'll make
us more productive is money well spent and quickly repaid, and far more
efficient than searching web pages to find a fact here and a fact there.. I
own the JLS, even though it's free online, because I can write in it and
mark the pages that are most important to me. And if I need to re-read an
entire chapter, it's more pleasant to read a book than to read many
screensful of text. In addition, many of us can even be reimbursed for
work-related books.

You have a horror of spending money. I don't know if that reflects your
financial situation or some visceral dislike of capitalism, but that really
doesn't matter. The point is that your rants against the idea that people
deserve to be paid for the labor don't make you a saint. They're just
peculiar.

 

[Mike Schilling]

The post in question contained nothing *but* an ad for a book. There
was no other information in it whatsoever. The only things
distinguishing it from run-of-the-mill spam were that it was targeted
and that it didn't come from a fly-by-night net account.

And that it was an answer to a specific question, which makes is the
opposite of spam.

But other than that, yeah, 100% spam.

 

[Mike Schilling]

I don't post any nasty claims about myself, so your statement is
vacuous.

You really don't see it, do you?

You think it's clever to turn someone's name into a vulgarity.

You think that people you don't know are judging you. You care very much
what they think.

You believe that these people need to be told what to think.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

You think it's clever to turn someone's name into a vulgarity.

He probably think it is a sign of "stellar IQ" as he claimed in
another post.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

I don't post any nasty claims about myself, so your statement is
vacuous.

How do you think your posts are considered by most readers here ?

Arne