At 12:15 AM -0400 9/28/00, Bernie Cosell wrote:
>Well, your list rules aside I find this 'difference' basically silly.
>Remember the old saw about on the Internet no one knows you're a dog.
woof. oh, um, meow.
> > Neither I know Margaret personally...at least not that I can remember.
>> As you note, her book is clearly along the lines of the scope and topic
>> of this list, but make no mistake, she is using us to promote her book.
>
>So what??
A good argument could be made everyone here is using the list to
forward their own goals and agendas. If they aren't, why the hell are
they here? What matter is whether their usage of the list coincides
with the needs and interest of the list itself.
Heck, I've had a good number of people solicit me to consult on
issues because of (at least in part) my presence and discussions on
this list. Is that a booga-booga too?
> > Were I paying for this list out of my own pocket, it would trouble me
>> to know someone was exploiting my hard work and labor for their
>> personal gain.
>
>Oh please, I'm *SO* tired of this old argument.
So am I. Were he paying for the list out of his own pocket, he could
set the rules, and that'd be great. But he's not -- so what he'd do
if he was doesn't really matter, does it?
Now -- I *do* pay for all sorts of things out of my own pocket, and I
*do* get honked off when people attempt to use the services I pay for
in ways I don't want them used, including really blatant
commercialism. But announcing a book that's relevant to the topic at
hand doesn't bother me. Everyone benefits, author and list
subscribers. That seems fair. Now, promoting the book weekly --
that's another matter.
What bothers me even more than promotions like this is when people
get into the mindset that nothing ought ot be allowed on a mail list
if it upsets (or might upset) anyone on the list. down that road lies
pablum, but the intolerance of anything that isn't within the purview
of the personal tunnel vision is a much larger problem than an
occasional puff piece. God help us that someone might post something
one person doesn't like -- we must ban everything like that.
Especially if the person upset is loud and noisy about it...
(if there's one thing I'm intolerant of, it's intolerance. Excuse me
while I go unpush the hot button...)
>OTOH, if you ARE paying for it out of your pocket, you can make the rules
>be anything you please, I guess...
And if the list is interesting and useful, we'll read it, too.
> > ... How does she advise us to
>> handle the so-called spammer or commercial solicitor on her lists? I
>> would be interested in hearing her opinion.
>
>I know you're not interested in mine, but as I said, my rule is easy: you
>evaluate the message *on*its*own*.
Or mine -- and it's really simple. Does the posting benefit the list?
If it does, it's no problem. If it doesn't benefit the list, or if it
creates problesm for the list, it doesn't.
Oh, wait. That would imply that lists that start meta-arguments or
fights on the list are a bigger problem than the posting that the
person who starts the fight was complaining about. Oops. I guess
that's my bad.... It's always okay to waste list bandwidth
complaining about stuff, even if that stuff was a well-meaning
attempt to add useful content to the list....
chuq (did I do pompous ass properly here? I'm practicing....)
--
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar
and say 'Man, what are you doing here?'"
