On 2007-05-16, pgwk > wrote:
> What puzzles me is that all the brou-haha -- and over 50 messages --
> about the Art of Tea announcement of its second issue generated some
> pretty virulent attacks on commercial misuse of USENET, violation of
> charter, etc.
[...]
> I ask for two reasons. My first is that I had absolutely no problem
> with the AoT announcement. I didn't see it as commercial but
> informative. I immediately subscribed to the magazine, which arrived
> today, and I am delighted by it -- I lack expert knowledge of puehrs
> so for me it is very instructive. I do have problems with the SP
> stuff, though. So what is the distinction that makes AoT out of order
> but SP acceptable?
I was more bothered by the Steeping Pot ad also. I don't know why that
is - probably because I may be interested in checking out Art of Tea,
while I'm not particularly interested in what the Steeping Pot is
selling.
Also, the folks from the Art of Tea seemed genuinely interested in
engaging in dialogue, and not just promoting their magazine.
I think part of the reason that you didn't see as many posts complaining
about this thread is because it's MORE blatant - people who were
bothered by it probably reported it to the OP's ISP and / or google
groups, or wrote them off-list to complain. I wasn't quited bothered
enough to file a spam complaint since the group's charter isn't that
clear, but I did write the sender off-list to complain.
Another part of the reason is because the spam issue was already
discussed recently.
That said, I did reply to this thread, and suggest that we amend the
charter to be clearer.
My reading of the Google Groups TOS is that (in THIS particular case,
since the message was sent via Google Groups) the sender may be in the
wrong, even if they're not technically in violation of the group's
charter.
http://www.google.com/googlegroups/t...f_service.html
"you will not ... post messages that promote pyramid schemes, chain
letters or disruptive commercial messages or advertisements, or
anything else prohibited by the Group owner."
I guess the sticking point is whether the message is "disruptive" or
not.
w