On May 16, 5:22 pm, Will Yardley >
wrote:
> 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

Why is this post an issue, but no one is complaining about the Agape
posting?