Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!decwrl!labrea!mcnc!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Re: of flames and sources (was: Re: Fred - A terminal Program) Message-ID: <474@brandx.rutgers.edu> Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 01:45:06 EDT Article-I.D.: brandx.474 Posted: Fri Oct 16 01:45:06 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Oct-87 03:28:22 EDT References: <246@ddsw1.UUCP> <203@papaya.bbn.com> <451@brandx.rutgers.edu> <243@coldbeer.UUCP> Distribution: alt Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 75 In article <243@coldbeer.UUCP>, roth@coldbeer.UUCP (roth) writes: > I'm going to respond to both Webber and Salz in this article. I'll reply for Webber. > > I agree with you 100%. This is blatent commercial usage of the net > > So what's, new, unusual, or terrible about that. This is a Capitalist society. I didn't claim it was new. It is unusual. Otherwise such announcements would be mixed in with the regular groups rather than banished to newprod and jobs. Whether or not society as a whole (or hole) is Capitalist, the net itself was not built on such principles. Instead, it was built on the cooperation of like-minded people rather than the domination of the have nots by the haves. Now that Usenet is in place, we start seeing people looking for ways to make a buck off it. > > (as well as attempted emotional blackmail for those of you who > ^^^^^^^^^ > Blackmail? Is there coercion or a threat in the posting? No! The author > was only begging for money. He isn't selling you the software since he's > already given you a copy. Nor can he compel you to pay. OUT OF CONTEXT!!! The whole phrase was EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL which is distinct from blackmail in general. ALSO, you clipped the pointer to net.singles where the concept was expanded upon at length a year or so ago. The comment said it was aimed at those people who recalled this concept, if you don't recall it, then it wasn't aimed at you. > Shareware is a pipe dream as the name of his company implies. Earlier this > year, some one posted the results of a survey of shareware authors. > Almost none of them made any money. This should not be surprising. Shareware The fact that it is incompetant merchandizing does not change the fact that it is merchandizing. > and asking for the money later. Why should anyone with a copy of shareware > send money to the author? The recipient already has what he wants. Moral > arguements will not induce most people to part with their money to pay for > something they already have. Moral arguements are coercive on moral people. Of course, I don't know much about unmoral people, but am willing to listen to those who choose to speak from experience. > Look, Rich, you have your own moderated sources group on the main part of the > net in which you can apply your standards as to what should and shouldn't be > posted to a sources group. Do you really have to try and extend your standards > to the alt subnet? I thought one of the reasons alt.sources was created was Actually, if you follow the other source groups you would find that Rich doesn't impose this aspect of his standards on his own group (although he has requested comment on such policies re Copyrights in general). > that many people objected to moderated source groups like yours where a > moderator would impose some standards as to what could be posted. If there > is going to be an unmoderated sources group on the alt net then then it's > inevitable that someone will post shareware in it. There's no way to stop My understanding was that he was using the time-honored method of voicing distaste when something distasteful happens. He was not proposing to moderate alt.sources. While usually such protests fall on deaf ears, the actual poster of Fred turned out to be more responsive than most people on the net as per his subsequent message on alt.sources. > I yield the soapbox to the next raving loony. Next! ------ BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)