On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:18:28 GMT, "Alex Chaihorsky"
> cast caution to the wind and posted:

>Mike, let it be.
>I think if you really think about it - what's a big deal? legally its all
>public anyway, no copyrights or anything.
>Its free promotions of our group. And of our views.
>
>Sasha.

Alex,

My big beef is that they coined the term "TeaTalk" and portrayed this
public domain group as being "theirs" by using the statement " 2,600
articles on our TeaTalk discussion board". To someone who is not
Usenet savvy, and there are many, this could give the aura of
credibility. For example: "If this vendor's discussion board is so
popular then this vendor must be credible".

It really is a cool concept! I have no beef with the free interface,
as a matter of fact I think the coding behind it is admirable, but if
you are going to capitalize on the group then clearly portray it for
what it is and maybe even educate people about the newsgroup concept.
They do say on the second page: "This is a free web interface to the
rec.food.drink.tea newsgroup." This is cool but how many people know
what a rec.food.whatever is? Of about 100 home computer users where I
work only about 5 of them know what a newsgroup is.

BTW, I have noticed the link I took issue with is now gone, it appears
they are rethinking it, if so I commend them.

Mike



Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
remove the "filter" in my email address to reply