On May 8, 8:11 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> One day I asked somebody if he could read the sign No Soliciting. He
> said it didn't apply to him because he was a Salesman. Quack, quack.
> I'm familiar with sales techniques. In your case it is called kiss
> ass or appeal to vanity. In my neck of the woods gifts are called
> bribes. We just admended our state constitution for government
> employess to identify all 'gifts' or it is a criminal bribe if not
> disclosed. So far nobody has mentioned any content that would make me
> buy a copy. Just it's a good read and educational which can be said
> for the National Inquirer. My opinion is free. Your rag costs
> money. Once again commercial advertisement is prohibited by this
> group's charter. If you publicly state you buy your copy at the
> newsstand like everyone else then you are intitled to your opinion
> like everyone else. You have a vested interest if there are any terms
> for employment.
>
> Jim
>
> PS Hey people anything I know about tea I still learn here. It's a
> special place. You can throw away the letters-to-the-editor. If you
> bought the rag because of what was said here then he succeeded and for
> all I care you can get lost too. I'm up to 75% lost packets on my
> failing network card. This ain't the first time using Google.
>
> On May 7, 11:30 am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Jim,
> > You say I have a vested interest and am out to make a buck, but I've
> > already stated that I am a volunteer. Furthermore, I wasn't
> > advertising-- I was offering to use my own hard earned money, which I
> > make teaching English, to personally buy you a magazine as well as
> > send it to you. I don't see how offering to buy someone something is
> > "advertising". Where I come from, we call it a "gift"; or you could
> > have looked at it as a challenge. You said the magazine had nothing to
> > teach you and you obviously feel that you wouldn't enjoy reading it. I
> > think otherwise. I was offering to settle the matter without costing
> > you a cent. What's more, I really would bet my tea collection against
> > yours that a) you would learn something, and b) you would enjoy it.
>
> > Despite your rudeness, the offer still stands. If you want, send me an
> > email with your address. Otherwise a polite "No, thank you" would have
> > sufficed just fine...
>
> > Regards
> > Ethan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jim,

First off, you're right, this thread began as a sales pitch, which
shouldn't be here in the first place. But we know that the only
barrier there is to prevent vendors from posting pitches is their own
conscience, which bona fide (non-invested members) here can't
control. Any other sales pitch will most likely get ignored and sink
down the bottomless pit of RFDT. But the responses thereafter here
were not in response to the sales pitch perse, but rather about the
strengths and weaknesses of the magazine itself. This is VERY USEFUL
to us "bona fide" members to know about.

MarshalN brought up the inconsistencies within the mag in English as
well as Chinese (applies to all Wu Shing publications). I didn't know
that, so now I know it's more widespread. I brought up the issue of
the magazine editor's and contributors' vested interest in the tea
selling and buying practices, which may affect the publication's
impartiality. This is, I think, quite useful to know by the readers
and subscribers in the West who are not familiar with their names and
reputation in the East.

So all in all, the thread has morphed into a useful discussion.

Some articles that I think you might be interested in: If you are
into Yixing pots, then you will appreciate the articles on the Yixing
masters (one has been featured in every issue so far...I hope this
continues). And then there is the article about the processess of
mining and producing Yixing clays. Excellent read, too! Honestly, I
have scoured the net to find such information in English...but it is
lacking and those that are out there are always attached to pieces
being sold by vendors, and usually they are very minimal. I like
knowing who are the famous artists responsible for the movement of
Yixing artistry as a whole. This section alone is worth the $12.99
admission price.

There are also articles that speak honestly the point of view of a
concerned teaist. He pushes for the organic farming of pu'er tea and
rationalized for the good practices in the tea farms. Tea drinking is
not what it used to be, he said, and he longs for the old connection
between a man and his cup of tea. He goes into details...and what I'm
saying here is oversimplified. That article is something worth
reading about.

Really, tell Ethan to send you a copy and judge for yourself. It's
free! Read it to sleep or in the toilet, if you must.

Phyll
http://phyllsheng.blogspot.com
www.tching.com
www.winexiles.com

The subject of advertising has been a topic here on several occasions.
With all due respect to others in this group, the Group Charter does
*NOT* prohibit advertising per se. While many of us, including myself,
would prefer not to see very much of it, it is nonetheless NOT against
the charter. The Charter's reference to advertising appears to
prohibit advertising medicinal claims about tea, and about herbal teas
in particular, and thats all. IMHO the essence was to keep the
Traveling Gypsy Snake Oil claims out of here.While none of us want our
group to polluted and overrun by advertisers, for accuracy's sake
let's not read something into the Charter that isn't there.

What follows is the pertinent section, for the full text see
http://www.246.dk/teavotes.html


Begin Quote:
Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC 4 April 1995.
[....]

CHARTER

Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage
(after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant
(C.
sinensis or close relatives) in water. Discussions of herbal teas
(e.g.
chamomile, sassafras, etc.) are also approved, but this newsgroup
should
NOT be used for advertising herbal tea products or discussing tea as
anything other than a beverage. Tea-as-medicine discussions should
take
place in misc.health.alternative.

End Quote

Dont get me wrong, I am not endorsing nor promoting the placement of
advertisements on this group, I don't and won't allow them on my own
website and I have had plenty of requests. However, in my honest
opinion, the RFDT Charter does not prohibit them, but I will leave it
up to the group to decide what the Charter does or doesn't say. It is
quoted here in it's entirety for all to see.

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

This is Usenet. Commercial posting is prohibited by the REC
hierarchy. A group such as rec.food.drink.tea.marketplace would have
to be established for commercial posts.

Jim

On May 8, 1:19 pm, Mike Petro > wrote:
> The subject of advertising has been a topic here on several occasions.
> With all due respect to others in this group, the Group Charter does
> *NOT* prohibit advertising per se. While many of us, including myself,
> would prefer not to see very much of it, it is nonetheless NOT against
> the charter. The Charter's reference to advertising appears to
> prohibit advertising medicinal claims about tea, and about herbal teas
> in particular, and thats all. IMHO the essence was to keep the
> Traveling Gypsy Snake Oil claims out of here.While none of us want our
> group to polluted and overrun by advertisers, for accuracy's sake
> let's not read something into the Charter that isn't there.
>
> What follows is the pertinent section, for the full text seehttp://www.246.dk/teavotes.html
>
> Begin Quote:
> Voting closed at 23:59:59 UTC 4 April 1995.
> [....]
>
> CHARTER
>
> Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage
> (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant
> (C.
> sinensis or close relatives) in water. Discussions of herbal teas
> (e.g.
> chamomile, sassafras, etc.) are also approved, but this newsgroup
> should
> NOT be used for advertising herbal tea products or discussing tea as
> anything other than a beverage. Tea-as-medicine discussions should
> take
> place in misc.health.alternative.
>
> End Quote
>
> Dont get me wrong, I am not endorsing nor promoting the placement of
> advertisements on this group, I don't and won't allow them on my own
> website and I have had plenty of requests. However, in my honest
> opinion, the RFDT Charter does not prohibit them, but I will leave it
> up to the group to decide what the Charter does or doesn't say. It is
> quoted here in it's entirety for all to see.
>
> Mikehttp://www.pu-erh.net

On May 9, 9:16 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> This is Usenet. Commercial posting is prohibited by the REC
> hierarchy. A group such as rec.food.drink.tea.marketplace would have
> to be established for commercial posts.
>
> Jim


Interesting Jim, can you please provide a reference that documents
this prohibition in the REC hierarchy. My searches have not found
anything to this effect.

Nonetheless, it is *not* "prohibited by this group's charter" from
what I can see, which I believe was the original claim.

Here are some other interesting references on the topic:
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/adve.../how-to/part1/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canter_&_Siegel
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/1999/04/19098
http://www.landfield.com/usenet/mode...mod08.html#8.4

Thanks,

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

Lawyer. I've never once been challenged by anyone like the last guy
who even bothers to look up the Charter. Correctly stating Usenet
policy certainly ain't going to make any difference. The Supreme
Court has ruled that countryclub practices,procedures,policies are
legally enforceable in addition to bylaws. The bylaws do not have to
specifically state perse No Blacks No Women No Whoever for them to be
excluded. I rest that is the case for disallowing commercial posts in
this group in addition to Usenet policy. Commercial posting is
allowed in the REC heirarchy in special designated areas identified as
such as I indicated. Damn network card.

Jim

On May 9, 8:56 am, Mike Petro > wrote:
> On May 9, 9:16 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
>
> > This is Usenet. Commercial posting is prohibited by the REC
> > hierarchy. A group such as rec.food.drink.tea.marketplace would have
> > to be established for commercial posts.
>
> > Jim
>
> Interesting Jim, can you please provide a reference that documents
> this prohibition in the REC hierarchy. My searches have not found
> anything to this effect.
>
> Nonetheless, it is *not* "prohibited by this group's charter" from
> what I can see, which I believe was the original claim.
>
> Here are some other interesting references on the topic:http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/adve...mod08.html#8.4
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mikehttp://www.pu-erh.net

On May 10, 10:57 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:

> Lawyer. I've never once been challenged by anyone like the last guy
> who even bothers to look up the Charter. Correctly stating Usenet
> policy certainly ain't going to make any difference.

No, but misstating the policy doesn't do anyone a service either.

> The Supreme
> Court has ruled that countryclub practices,procedures,policies are
> legally enforceable in addition to bylaws. The bylaws do not have to
> specifically state perse No Blacks No Women No Whoever for them to be
> excluded. I rest that is the case for disallowing commercial posts in
> this group in addition to Usenet policy. Commercial posting is
> allowed in the REC heirarchy in special designated areas identified as
> such as I indicated.

This is where I have to disagree unless you can provide a "USENET
specific" reference. Commercial posting has long been considered
distasteful and often OT, but I can't find anywhere that prohibits it
except when explicitly prohibited in the individual group charters.
The RFDT charter could easily be interpreted to allow some forms of
advertising since the statememnt "NOT be used for advertising herbal
tea products or discussing tea as anything other than a beverage" only
forbids advertising of one very specific type of product and/or
applications other than as a beverage, which inherently implies that
others forms are not forbidden.

Hehehe, and no, I am not a Lawyer.....

Mike
http://www.pu-erh.net

On 2007-05-10, Mike Petro > wrote:
> On May 10, 10:57 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:

>> Commercial posting is allowed in the REC heirarchy in special
>> designated areas identified as such as I indicated.
>
> This is where I have to disagree unless you can provide a "USENET
> specific" reference. Commercial posting has long been considered
> distasteful and often OT, but I can't find anywhere that prohibits it
> except when explicitly prohibited in the individual group charters.
> The RFDT charter could easily be interpreted to allow some forms of
> advertising since the statememnt "NOT be used for advertising herbal
> tea products or discussing tea as anything other than a beverage" only
> forbids advertising of one very specific type of product and/or
> applications other than as a beverage, which inherently implies that
> others forms are not forbidden.

When I was abuse@ for a medium-ish (now fairly large-ish hosting
provider), our policy was always to check the group charter; I believe
their TOS (and the TOS of most ISPs I've seen) specifically mentions
posts that violate a group's charter.

That said, I think promoting or discussing a project one is working on
is probably on-topic anyway (well assuming the project is on-topic and
of interest to the group), particularly when the poster(s) seem willing
to engage in discussion and are not just "broadcasting" advertisements.

Spam is in the eye of the beholder; my $0.02 is that I'm a pretty rabid
anti-spammer, and don't like any sort of advertisement; I've reported
several spam posts to this NG. I didn't take the Art of Tea post that
way, though.

w

When people ask for proof I say evidence is a good place to start.
There are 407 .marketplace extentions in USENET. There are 34 in the
REC hierarchy with 2.5 million posts. The Charters for those groups
specifically say Commercial Posts Allowed. The discussion group does
not have to admend it's Charter in anyway because Commercial Posts are
inherently prohibited. There is a core knowledge about USENET. I
don't ask you to prove to me the Charter is part of USENET. When
people X post they can't claim where does USENET say I can't. There
is a reason this group isn't called food.rec.drink.tea. You are not
permitted to do what you want in USENET. If you want to know why do
some homework. A SalesPitch followed by I bought it isn't a
discussion.

Jim

PS Okay for proof try looking he
ftp:sunsite.unc.edu/pub/docs/about-the-net/usenet-info-center/report/
txt
Download the two abbreviated and full .txt files. My network card can
barely Google Groups so I can't. I seem to remember they were some
sort of USENET Bible. USENET was created in 1979. I would believe
the pertinent information has become decentralized overtime. It's
there but not probably in one conventient AHA place.


On May 10, 10:24 am, Mike Petro > wrote:
> On May 10, 10:57 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> > Commercial posting is
> > allowed in the REC heirarchy in special designated areas identified as
> > such as I indicated.
>
> This is where I have to disagree unless you can provide a "USENET
> specific" reference. Commercial posting has long been considered
> distasteful and often OT, but I can't find anywhere that prohibits it
> except when explicitly prohibited in the individual group charters.
> The RFDT charter could easily be interpreted to allow some forms of
> advertising since the statememnt "NOT be used for advertising herbal
> tea products or discussing tea as anything other than a beverage" only
> forbids advertising of one very specific type of product and/or
> applications other than as a beverage, which inherently implies that
> others forms are not forbidden.
>
> Hehehe, and no, I am not a Lawyer.....
>
> Mikehttp://www.pu-erh.net

On 11 May 2007 06:54:42 -0700, Space Cowboy >
wrote:

>When people ask for proof I say evidence is a good place to start.
>There are 407 .marketplace extentions in USENET. There are 34 in the
>REC hierarchy with 2.5 million posts. The Charters for those groups
>specifically say Commercial Posts Allowed.

Irrelevant, the mere presence of .marketplace does not inherently
prohibit commercial posts in all other groups, just the groups in that
immediate hierarchy. If there was a RFDT.marketplace then I would
agree that the protocol would be to put all commercial posts there,
but there is no such group. If we, as a group, felt strongly about
this we could always start a petition for such a group.

>The discussion group does
>not have to admend it's Charter in anyway because Commercial Posts are
>inherently prohibited. There is a core knowledge about USENET.

Again, I ask for a reference backing up this claim as I cant find one,
and I have sincerely looked.


>You are not
>permitted to do what you want in USENET.

True, protocol dictates that you respect the groups charter.


>PS Okay for proof try looking he
>ftp:sunsite.unc.edu/pub/docs/about-the-net/usenet-info-center/report/
>txt
>Download the two abbreviated and full .txt files.

Neither of these documents support your claim.

All of this is "bait and switch" anyway. The original claim that I
challenged was that "commercial advertisement is prohibited by this
group's charter" it then morphed into "Commercial posting is
prohibited by the REC hierarchy". Without a reference to support
either claim, I stand by mine. Just because we all find it distasteful
does not mean it is prohibited.

___________
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

The Charter simply states the purpose of the group. Everything else
including prohibited commercial posting is USENET. I'll do some more
homework for you when I get a chance. The marketplace groups are
normally formed by the responsible advertizers not discussion groups
telling them to get lost. 2.5 million posts across 34 REC marketplace
groups ain't discussion. If it makes you feel better the REC
hierarchy prohibits commercial posting in discussion groups except
where specifically designated normally with the .markeplace
extention. Someone is giving me a used MAC with 10.0 so it might be
more fun looking through a different Window ;-).

Jim

PS I know you're not a lawyer because you are grasping at straws like
the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes because it isn't
mentioned in the Constitution. USENET is our Constitution. People
can't do whay they want.

On May 12, 5:59 am, Mike Petro > wrote:
> On 11 May 2007 06:54:42 -0700, Space Cowboy >
> wrote:
>
> >When people ask for proof I say evidence is a good place to start.
> >There are 407 .marketplace extentions in USENET. There are 34 in the
> >REC hierarchy with 2.5 million posts. The Charters for those groups
> >specifically say Commercial Posts Allowed.
....blah blah blah...
> All of this is "bait and switch" anyway. The original claim that I
> challenged was that "commercial advertisement is prohibited by this
> group's charter" it then morphed into "Commercial posting is
> prohibited by the REC hierarchy". Without a reference to support
> either claim, I stand by mine. Just because we all find it distasteful
> does not mean it is prohibited.
>
> ___________
> Mike Petrohttp://www.pu-erh.net

On May 12, 7:28 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> The Charter simply states the purpose of the group. Everything else
> including prohibited commercial posting is USENET. I'll do some more
> homework for you when I get a chance. The marketplace groups are
> normally formed by the responsible advertizers not discussion groups
> telling them to get lost. 2.5 million posts across 34 REC marketplace
> groups ain't discussion. If it makes you feel better the REC
> hierarchy prohibits commercial posting in discussion groups except
> where specifically designated normally with the .markeplace
> extention. Someone is giving me a used MAC with 10.0 so it might be
> more fun looking through a different Window ;-).
>
> Jim
>
> PS I know you're not a lawyer because you are grasping at straws like
> the people who claim they don't have to pay taxes because it isn't
> mentioned in the Constitution. USENET is our Constitution. People
> can't do whay they want.
>
> On May 12, 5:59 am, Mike Petro > wrote:> On 11 May 2007 06:54:42 -0700, Space Cowboy >
> > wrote:
>
> > >When people ask for proof I say evidence is a good place to start.
> > >There are 407 .marketplace extentions in USENET. There are 34 in the
> > >REC hierarchy with 2.5 million posts. The Charters for those groups
> > >specifically say Commercial Posts Allowed.
>
> ...blah blah blah...
>
>
>
> > All of this is "bait and switch" anyway. The original claim that I
> > challenged was that "commercial advertisement is prohibited by this
> > group's charter" it then morphed into "Commercial posting is
> > prohibited by the REC hierarchy". Without a reference to support
> > either claim, I stand by mine. Just because we all find it distasteful
> > does not mean it is prohibited.
>
> > ___________
> > Mike Petrohttp://www.pu-erh.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's really quite a pity that these posts have taken this direction.
Those of us who may have been interested in the headings, I'm sure,
have become tired of this cranky, curmudgeon-like, leaning toward
ridiculously irrelevant, and even nasty dialogue.
Jim, it seems you have a real need to have the last word. There is a
point, however, when an intelligent person reasons that "enough is
enough".
Shen

On 12 May 2007 07:28:43 -0700, Space Cowboy >
wrote:

>The Charter simply states the purpose of the group. Everything else
>including prohibited commercial posting is USENET. I'll do some more
>homework for you when I get a chance.

I will await your reference...........

___________
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net

I think you are serious and I will do the research when I can. It's
probably in the same place where it says you can't post binaries in
the discussion groups. Well I got the MAC without a mouse which was
scrubbed clean from a University sale for $35. All it has is a folder
with an alternating smiley face and a question mark. I thought MAC
was suppose to be intuitive. Now I have to go into the MAC groups and
find out what to do next.

Jim

On May 13, 8:30 pm, Mike Petro > wrote:
> On 12 May 2007 07:28:43 -0700, Space Cowboy >
> wrote:
>
> >The Charter simply states the purpose of the group. Everything else
> >including prohibited commercial posting is USENET. I'll do some more
> >homework for you when I get a chance.
>
> I will await your reference...........
>
> ___________
> Mike Petrohttp://www.pu-erh.net