On 27 Sep 2000, 23:30, Margaret Levine Young wrote:
> This is a good point -- each mailing list manager makes the rules for
> his or her own list. I should have checked with the list manager first
> -- my dumb move!
As it turns out, no so -- dumb, that is. :-)
The listowner clearly gave his blessing for your post.
I was just making the point that I and possibly other listowners would
not be so receptive to that kind of post.
> Because of the Internet's non-commercial origins, some people mistakenly
> think that the Internet shouldn't be used for commercial use,
That is not a *mistake*; it is a difference of opinion.
The *mistake* is in when the commercial interests think that they have
dominate rights to the Internet and their belief that the Internet has
no room for free thinkers and those whom can operate in the Internet
free of commercial gain and their belief they can run roughshod on all
those whom oppose them.
There is and should always be, portions of our Internet that are free
and clear of commercial interests.
> or that if anyone is making any money off of something, it is wrong.
The wrong here is in using someone else's money and/or labor without
permission to make money solely for yourself or firm. Another wrong is
in making the assumption that your commercial enterprise is wanted by
all those whom you force your presence upon. It's not. It never will
be. In a forum such as this one, you are bound to annoy a certain
number of people with your advertisement.
I can't say if the owner pays for the hosting of this list, but his
time spent administering to the list has value. By allowing your post,
he has paid some toward your advertising budget. He may not object to
this himself, but as for me, I would not wish to pay for my
subscribers' commercials. They can spend their own money for their ads.
> Most list managers I know don't hold this view, and allow postings
> that provide value to the subscribers.
We travel in different circles. Most I know do hold the same view as
I. Most listmanagers I know would have removed you as a subscriber or
at the least, sent you a warning letter.
> That's the rule I use -- would a subscriber gain valuable information
> from this post?
Moi aussi, but an addendum to that rule for me is in looking if the
poster is trying to gain monetarily or otherwise some consideration.
When that is the case, they lose credibility. It also is not allowed
on my lists.
If you wanted to extol the virtues of someone else's book for which you
had no vested interest, then I for one would find that valuable and
meritorious for the subscribers and especially credible since you are
an author of Internet books, yourself. But when you serve to gain
personally and more so - financially from the post, then conflict of
interest enters and your credibility is suspect.
> I am eager to learn about books and Web sites -- both items from
> which people make money -- about managing lists (and especially about
> people managing entire list sites). So I figured (perhaps
> incorrectly) that other subscribers to this list would want to know
> about new sources of list-management information. That's what we are
> all here for -- to get ideas and answers about list management.
Yes, but once again your credibility is at issue with your self
promotion. I would have had far more respect for your book had someone
else on the list that had nothing to gain, given a positive review of
your book.
> And don't worry -- if you think I'm gonna make big bucks from this book
> (although I'd love to be proven wrong), I'll be stunned.
We are not worried about that and we all wish you great success with
your endeavors. Our worry or shall we say concern would be that other
subscribers on this list might come to believe that this list is now a
classified ads' list where they can hawk their wares ad nauseum.
[...]
> If a subscriber posts spam (commercial, religious, or other e-mail that
> is unrelated to the topic of the list), the manager may warn the spammer
> privately, then eject him/her after a second offense.
If the admonition to not spam is clearly listed in the Welcome letter
with the proviso that one would be removed in such cases, then the
warning would not be a requirement. Warnings are given in cases where
the policy has not been made so clearly.
> Hope this clarifies my thinking!
It does and we thank you for your ideas and input, Margaret. :-)
The best advice I've always given potential listowners is for them to
subscribe to many different mailing lists themselves prior to their
ownership of a list in a sort of apprenticeship. They can observe the
listowners of their various lists and make notes to themselves of the
best and worst things they see the listowner doing. They can then take
the best policies to their own list and leave the worst behind.
For newcomers on this list, they need to look at your post and look at
the owner's blessing and ask themselves "Would this be best for my
list?"
Alan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
