Re: notifying particular thread to wake up.

nebulous99@xxxxxxxxx writes:

On Oct 14, 6:11 am, Lasse Reichstein Nielsen <l...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, it was. It was an ad, for crying out loud.

No, it was a reference to a book.

Yes, it was an ad. It was a post whose sole content was the promotion
of a commercial product.

Not promotion. Recommendation. Recommendation can be used as
promotion, but it doesn't have to be. It's a matter of intent, not
content, whether it is promotion.

It linked to a web site whose sole content
was the promotion of that commercial product. I don't see any
distinction here -- such a thing constitutes an ad, pure and simple.

And I see the distiction and disagree.

Furthermore, it appeared in place of the actual information the OP
requested. The OP requested information, and got told where to go buy
access to it instead of told where the information he sought could be
had for free. That is not very nice regardless.

It was on-topic and helpfull. I would be pleased to get such a response
if I had a question.
I do buy books, but I also read them online (my company has deals with
services that make books readable on the web), or even borrow them
from the library. Just because a book can be bought, it doesn't mean
that it's the only way to get to read it.

The point of the post in question was referring the reader to the
book, whether the link to the commerical site was there or not. As
such, that reference was not advertising, nor commercial.

Sure it was. If I posted an ad here for something, i.e. an endorsement
for a commercial product, but did not include a link, then it would
magically not count as "an ad" in your eyes? So if I post "Enjoy Coca-
Cola! http://www.coke.com"; that's an ad, but if I just post "Enjoy
Coca-Cola!" it's not?
That's ridiculous.

Sure. But if someone said "I'm so thirsty", and you responded with
"Try Coca-Cola. I use it and like it.", then it's not necessarily
advertising. If you do have a commercial interest in getting people
to buy the product, then it is advertisment. If you don't, then it's
just recommendation.

Also, something is not a "commercial" posting *unless* the poster
expects to make profit from posting it, in any way or form. In this
case, the poster was unrelated to both the book and the linked web
page

What's your evidence for drawing this conclusion?

He said so.
<URL:news:1190997941.185538.70200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Don't forget, Lew and Andrew have made clear in other threads that
people who post here are considered to be affiliated with any sites
they recommend until proven otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Someone starting
a new thread to tell us about the greatness of some site is under
greater suspision of being an agent of that site. Especially if they
are new and the owner of the site is not easily determined,

In this case, the reference came as part of a plausible response to
someone elses question, by a poster that has been with us for quite a
while.

Circumstances matter.

and will not receive anything if anyone choses to buy the
book. He was just a happy customer sharing his experience.

Even if I grant this, look at it this way: one guy goes up to a group
of people and asks for directions to the student loan office. The
first respondent raves about how awesome his new Mercedes-Benz is, and
mentions that it has satellite navigation and GPS, and gives
directions to the nearest Mercedes dealership.

Someone looking for a student loan office (whatever that is) is
probably not in a position to buy a new expensive car. In this case,
the original poster gave no indications in any direction.
I.e., the example is a strawman.

There's been, *at minimum*, a gross failure of communication (or maybe
of intelligence) in such an instance, wouldn't you agree?

Obviosuly, as you designed the example for that.

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.

That is not the statement that is being disputed.

Yes, it is.

Ok. I'm not disputing it.

The statment that is being disputed is this:

| Links to non-free software or information should be clearly marked as
| such in the newsgroup postings, and good free alternatives should be
| mentioned as well so that people may make an informed choice

This is just so obvious that it really should go without saying.

And yet it was disputed immediately, and nobody else have given support
to it.

There is no such requirement. Anybody can recommend any help or
soultion that they care to, whether commercial or not. If it is
a commercial solution, then saying so is a good idea.
There is *no* requirement that people recommending something that
costs money should also do anything else.

Which would you prefer to receive if you were asking a question? A
link to where you can buy the answer, or just the damn answer???

I would prefer the answer.
But does that make it the best response? Should you give a man a fish,
or teach him to fish?
Some questions don't have simple answers. Recommending a good book on
the general subject might seem the best way to give the questioner
the background information necessary to even understand the correct
answer.

Which would you prefer in the way of product recommendations? A list
of only expensive options, or all of them?

All of them, obviously.
However, I would not require that anybody giving recommendations
must do any more than what they care to do. If you had to post
a complete list of alternatives or nothing at all, you would get
a lot of "nothing at all".
If you feel one recommendation should be acompagnied by another
recommendation, e.g., for a free alternative, *you* should post it.

Which would you prefer if you asked for a car dealership
recommendation? Only Rolls-Royce and Mercedes dealers, or the
assortment of Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, and so forth dealerships as
well?

I would prefer the ones you can personally recommend. Don't pad the
list with something else, especially if it's just something you have
looked up in the phonebook for your answer to be "complete".
I'd much rather have *one* genuine deep-felt recommendation than
several indifferent references.

Which would you expect a random other person to prefer?

The best answer I can give. If I can recommend a commercial solution,
because I have had good experience with it, then it's a good answer.
If I don't know of a free alternative, I obviously shouldn't write
about it.

One not known to be rich?

If I thought it mattered, I'd take it into consideration. In a forum
like this, where I don't write for just one person, I'd probably also
include answers not directly suited for the person I'm responding to.
Pointing to a book should be sufficient for people to know that it's a
physical object that can cost money to acquire.

Especially one who is probably a student and probably not a trust
fundie either, or he'd be asking some paid help or private tutor
instead of asking you?

What's your evidence for drawing this conclusion?

I bet a lot of the questions in this group is related to work,
not study, and not because other ways of getting answers aren't
available, but because they aren't necessarily as quick or of as
good quality.

(Ok, checking his posting ip address does lead to a .edu address, so
it's a fair guess. Such a check is not something people can be
expected to go through before answering though.)

So far, no support for *that* claim has been posited, and none of the
other posters, all long-time newsgroup users, have ever heard of such
a rule or custom.

It isn't a rule or custom. It's just plain common sense, ***.

Don't call me names, don't insult me.

It's called "not leading people down the garden path" or "not
ripping people off" -- and yes, people paying for something that has
a free alternative they'd have been perfectly satisfied with simply
because they never got told about the free alternative ARE being
ripped off.

Then tell them about it. It's as easy as that.

[snip remainder of unprovoked hostility and general nastiness]

For the record, the remainder of the message was four lines:

| I.e., links to non-free software or information need not be marked as
| such. There is definitly no requirement, or even expectation, that
| posters of links to non-free software or information also post free
| alternatives.

I would very much like to hear where the hostility or nastiness is.

Go away.

In my own good time.
/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lrn@xxxxxxxxxx
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
.