Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!rutgers!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!cmm1 From: cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st Subject: Re: The Quick ST II Challenge vs. Usenet? Message-ID: <1990Oct26.134433.28366@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Date: 26 Oct 90 13:44:33 GMT References: <1990Oct22.190053.21874@wam.umd.edu> <58521@microsoft.UUCP> Sender: news@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Daily News) Organization: Columbia University Lines: 54 In article <58521@microsoft.UUCP> darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) writes: >I have to disagree with that. If we were to follow that rule to the letter, >then any discussion of ANY commercial product, whether software, or >hardware could constitute being called advertizing. For example, when >someone posts complete specs and prices for the TT or the new Macs, is that >not really advertizing? Any time someone posts the name of a product and >a price and an address, is that not adveritzing? What difference is there >if I post my address and prices, or if someone else does it. If someone >wants to know, I'll post it. The difference? It's a question of ethics. I don't see any problem if a person buys your program, becomes very happy with it, and then raves about it on the net. That is what Usenet is for, the exchange of ideas. It is completely different for you, the author, to blow your own horn, tell us how overpriced other products are that compete with your product, and then offer a promotion of your product (the free disk offer). >And the "product" I was "advertizing" was a free demo. I didn't waste a lot >of bandwidth by posting a 150K uuencoded file to the net. Instead, I posted >a short message saying that if anyone is interested, they can email me >privately, and then later posted a 9K message because a lot of people >requested it. Well, that was very GENEROUS of you to only make all the sites on Usenet propogate thousands of 9K files instead of 150K. It isn't the length that is wrong, it is the concept of what you're doing that is wrong. >more bandwidth has been wasted arguing about this than my >original 2 postings! This is true. However, that doesn't absolve you of what you did. What you did was still wrong. >What can be discussed if we can't talk about commercial products? Remember >that message I posted about two weeks ago where I bitched about how commercial >products don't get discussed on Usenet. Well I see why. And it ridiculous. >We have here a network for the free exchange of information all around the >world, and you're telling me I can't post a message telling people about my >product. I'm not posting daily or weekly "ads", just one announcement. If >you're telling me I can't do that, then Jesus, what's Usenet for? There is >just so much PD software we can talk about and distribute. Who said we cannot discuss commercial products? I see them discussed all the time? There is a difference between discussion commercial products and a software author plugging his wares on the net. >- Darek ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------