I'm puzzled.... The (to me innocuous) Art of Tea announcement
generated over 50 messages and some pretty virulent diatribes about
"commercialism." The Stepping Pot spam equivalent, from someone who
has to my knowledge before never contributed to RFDT, and the Agape ad
haven't produced any comparable concerns. Is there something I am
missing -- a different view of USENET rules, any personal history/
rivalry behind the AoT brouhaha, a tea trade/tea drinker difference in
perceptions, or whatever?

Strange.......

I loved the AoT announcement and immediately subscribed to it. I still
can't see why it was such a violation of netiquette/rules. One of the
major value to me of RFDT is information. I don't know what's out
there and am always looking for good publications and artcles. I do
know how to locate good tea product and don't need an intrusive
Steeping Pot ad with discount coupon. I think we will see a lot more
of their ads.

My Art of Tea magazine arrived today. I had never heard of it before
so here is a distinctive information benefit to me from RFDT. I love
it, flaws and typos and all. So let me sort this out. AoT Bad because
"commercial", Steeping Pot Good? I don't feel any sense of outrage
about SP -- it's just spam -- but I'm very puzzled why the people so
outraged about AoT are apparently content with SP and Agape.

dunno man.. I personally don't mind the occasional ad here, as long as it's
tasteful and respectful and has, as you put it, information attached to it.
Plain "Buy my Tea Product" ads are no good, but newsletters which link to
products or an ad for a web site that offers a type of tea that people are
discussing, for example, is fine by me.

It does get annoying when someone on here tries to direct every conversation
into a sale, though. I think it's just like anything.. a good balance must
be struck.

On May 16, 4:16 pm, pgwk > wrote:
> I'm puzzled.... The (to me innocuous) Art of Tea announcement
> generated over 50 messages and some pretty virulent diatribes about
> "commercialism." The Stepping Pot spam equivalent, from someone who
> has to my knowledge before never contributed to RFDT, and the Agape ad
> haven't produced any comparable concerns. Is there something I am
> missing -- a different view of USENET rules, any personal history/
> rivalry behind the AoT brouhaha, a tea trade/tea drinker difference in
> perceptions, or whatever?
>
> Strange.......
>
> I loved the AoT announcement and immediately subscribed to it. I still
> can't see why it was such a violation of netiquette/rules. One of the
> major value to me of RFDT is information. I don't know what's out
> there and am always looking for good publications and artcles. I do
> know how to locate good tea product and don't need an intrusive
> Steeping Pot ad with discount coupon. I think we will see a lot more
> of their ads.
>
> My Art of Tea magazine arrived today. I had never heard of it before
> so here is a distinctive information benefit to me from RFDT. I love
> it, flaws and typos and all. So let me sort this out. AoT Bad because
> "commercial", Steeping Pot Good? I don't feel any sense of outrage
> about SP -- it's just spam -- but I'm very puzzled why the people so
> outraged about AoT are apparently content with SP and Agape.

As I mentioned, the AoT post turned into a useful discussion,
albeit somewhat heated by useless complaints. Most other spam tends
to get ignored and sink.

On May 16, 4:53 pm, pgwk > wrote:
> I'm puzzled.........
>
> 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. The Steeping Pot's ad plus discount coupon offer seems a
> tad "commercial" but has generated no comparable response. Am I
> missing something about netiquette? Is there some personal background
> about The`Art of Tea? Is the Steeping Pot ploy approved of by the
> slammers of AoT?

I challenged the "violation of the Charter" thing because I felt the
Charter was being misquoted and/or misinterpreted. The challenge was
in the interest of being factual and really had nothing to do with my
opinion.

My "opinion" is as follows, this is only my opinion and it has nothing
to do with the Charter or USENET netiquette:

If a "contributing" poster to this group throws out an occasional
blurb I really don't mind. If someone throws out a blurb that is
*specifically* related to the topic of a given thread I don't mind,
often this type is very useful.

When someone who has never *contributed* throws out an ad I do mind. I
guess to me the real metric is the motivation of the person over time.
If their only motivation for posting is profit then I really don't
care what they have to say. On the other hand if they are truly
passionate about tea, and sometimes post solely in the interest of
sharing knowledge, then I think they earn the right to the occasional
blurb. In other words, those who contribute are welcome, those who do
contribute are not.

In most cases I do not respond to "blatant" ads from non-contributors
because to do so only gives them more buzz and bandwidth. I personally
didnt respond to the SP post because it was a blatant ad from someone
who has never contributed except with profit as a motive. To keep
their thread alive only rewards them and I choose not to do that. I
suspect that many old-timers feel the same way which is probably why
you didn't see a flurry of posts. Any buzz is good buzz etc.

The Art of Tea blurb was acceptable in my opinion. The SP ad was not.
Probably the only reason the AoT generated so much controversy was
because it was indeed something of interest to many members of the
group, but some contributors objected because they have an aversion to
anything even remotely commercial. Blatant ads seldom generate that
much buzz. Actually, I now applaud AoT for their efforts, even though
I had reservations early on, I sincerely believe they will improve and
refine their publication over time. To have such a resource in English
is fantastic, I hope more publishers will follow this example. On the
other hand, shops like SP are a dime a dozen, if they are depending on
Adagio for their tea they have nothing of interest to me. If I want
Adagio tea, I will simply go to Adagio........

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

On May 16, 7:16 pm, pgwk > wrote:

> I'm puzzled.........
>
> 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. The Steeping Pot's ad plus discount coupon offer seems a
> tad "commercial" but has generated no comparable response. Am I
> missing something about netiquette? Is there some personal background
> about The`Art of Tea? Is the Steeping Pot ploy approved of by the
> slammers of AoT?

I challenged the "violation of the Charter" thing because I felt the
Charter was being misquoted and/or misinterpreted. The challenge was
in the interest of being factual and really had nothing to do with my
opinion.

My "opinion" is as follows, this is only my opinion and it has nothing
to do with the Charter or USENET netiquette:

If a "contributing" poster to this group throws out an occasional
blurb I really don't mind. If someone throws out a blurb that is
*specifically* related to the topic of a given thread I don't mind,
often this type is very useful.

When someone who has never *contributed* throws out an ad I do mind. I
guess to me the real metric is the motivation of the person over time.
If their only motivation for posting is profit then I really don't
care what they have to say. On the other hand if they are truly
passionate about tea, and sometimes post solely in the interest of
sharing knowledge, then I think they earn the right to the occasional
blurb. In other words, those who contribute are welcome, those who do
contribute are not.

In most cases I do not respond to "blatant" ads from non-contributors
because to do so only gives them more buzz and bandwidth. I personally
didnt respond to the SP post because it was a blatant ad from someone
who has never contributed except with profit as a motive. To keep
their thread alive only rewards them and I choose not to do that. I
suspect that many old-timers feel the same way which is probably why
you didn't see a flurry of posts. Any buzz is good buzz etc.

The Art of Tea blurb was acceptable in my opinion. The SP ad was not.
Probably the only reason the AoT generated so much controversy was
because it was indeed something of interest to many members of the
group, but some contributors objected because they have an aversion to
anything even remotely commercial. Blatant ads seldom generate that
much buzz. Actually, I now applaud AoT for their efforts, even though
I had reservations early on, I sincerely believe they will improve and
refine their publication over time. To have such a resource in English
is fantastic, I hope more publishers will follow this example. On the
other hand, shops like SP are a dime a dozen, if they are depending on
Adagio for their tea they have nothing of interest to me. If I want
Adagio tea, I will simply go to Adagio........

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

The tea rag made its sales pitch under soliciting feedback and special
FYI articles not found anywhere else followed by a bribe. You won't
see any change in the format except what was already planned. Nobody
could give an example of FYI beyond trivia which hasn't been mentioned
in this group in the past 12 years. I'm not for sale. My metro area
has the biggest newstand in the country. If that rag ever appears
there then I'll apologize for disputting their claim about circulation
over a subscription salespitch in this group. Someone send me
publishing info and I'll have them keep a lookout for it.

Jim

PS The AoT salespitch hasn't been lost on their advertizers. It's a
matter of time before they showup. If you bought a copy for the
bathroom they don't care where you read it. Give me an example of a
"virulent diatribe" in the AoT discussion. That is usually an
accusation with people standing on the sidelines with nothing to say
picking sides. If this rag is any good you'll hear it from others in
this group with no vested interest. All I heard is don't tell me
what to buy. I'll take a look if I ever see it on the circulation
stand as promised.

pgwk wrote:
> I'm puzzled.... The (to me innocuous) Art of Tea announcement
> generated over 50 messages and some pretty virulent diatribes about
> "commercialism." The Stepping Pot spam equivalent, from someone who
> has to my knowledge before never contributed to RFDT, and the Agape ad
> haven't produced any comparable concerns. Is there something I am
> missing -- a different view of USENET rules, any personal history/
> rivalry behind the AoT brouhaha, a tea trade/tea drinker difference in
> perceptions, or whatever?
>
> Strange.......
>
> I loved the AoT announcement and immediately subscribed to it. I still
> can't see why it was such a violation of netiquette/rules. One of the
> major value to me of RFDT is information. I don't know what's out
> there and am always looking for good publications and artcles. I do
> know how to locate good tea product and don't need an intrusive
> Steeping Pot ad with discount coupon. I think we will see a lot more
> of their ads.
>
> My Art of Tea magazine arrived today. I had never heard of it before
> so here is a distinctive information benefit to me from RFDT. I love
> it, flaws and typos and all. So let me sort this out. AoT Bad because
> "commercial", Steeping Pot Good? I don't feel any sense of outrage
> about SP -- it's just spam -- but I'm very puzzled why the people so
> outraged about AoT are apparently content with SP and Agape.

On May 17, 10:25 am, Mike Petro > wrote:
.....

Sorry for the multiple posts, Google flaked out on me, the posts were
actually over an hour apart when I thought the first one never made
it.

Mike

On May 17, 8:45 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> The tea rag made its sales pitch under soliciting feedback and special
> FYI articles not found anywhere else followed by a bribe. You won't
> see any change in the format except what was already planned. Nobody
> could give an example of FYI beyond trivia which hasn't been mentioned
> in this group in the past 12 years. I'm not for sale. My metro area
> has the biggest newstand in the country. If that rag ever appears
> there then I'll apologize for disputting their claim about circulation
> over a subscription salespitch in this group. Someone send me
> publishing info and I'll have them keep a lookout for it.
>
> Jim
>
> PS The AoT salespitch hasn't been lost on their advertizers. It's a
> matter of time before they showup. If you bought a copy for the
> bathroom they don't care where you read it. Give me an example of a
> "virulent diatribe" in the AoT discussion. That is usually an
> accusation with people standing on the sidelines with nothing to say
> picking sides. If this rag is any good you'll hear it from others in
> this group with no vested interest. All I heard is don't tell me
> what to buy. I'll take a look if I ever see it on the circulation
> stand as promised.
>
>
>
> pgwk wrote:
> > I'm puzzled.... The (to me innocuous) Art of Tea announcement
> > generated over 50 messages and some pretty virulent diatribes about
> > "commercialism." The Stepping Pot spam equivalent, from someone who
> > has to my knowledge before never contributed to RFDT, and the Agape ad
> > haven't produced any comparable concerns. Is there something I am
> > missing -- a different view of USENET rules, any personal history/
> > rivalry behind the AoT brouhaha, a tea trade/tea drinker difference in
> > perceptions, or whatever?
>
> > Strange.......
>
> > I loved the AoT announcement and immediately subscribed to it. I still
> > can't see why it was such a violation of netiquette/rules. One of the
> > major value to me of RFDT is information. I don't know what's out
> > there and am always looking for good publications and artcles. I do
> > know how to locate good tea product and don't need an intrusive
> > Steeping Pot ad with discount coupon. I think we will see a lot more
> > of their ads.
>
> > My Art of Tea magazine arrived today. I had never heard of it before
> > so here is a distinctive information benefit to me from RFDT. I love
> > it, flaws and typos and all. So let me sort this out. AoT Bad because
> > "commercial", Steeping Pot Good? I don't feel any sense of outrage
> > about SP -- it's just spam -- but I'm very puzzled why the people so
> > outraged about AoT are apparently content with SP and Agape.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You know, there are innumerable references made on this list to James
Norwood's books and LuYu's Classic of Tea and other notable
publications that serve as both reference and guidance to tea lovers.
Art of Tea can fall into that catagory easily and suggesting its
practical usage for those purposes hardly constitutes advertising in
my mind.
Agape and Steeping Pot are blatent in their advertising and the later
dispicable for its plagiarism. For that alone, as a writer, I am
outraged and I do hope Adagio sticks it to them.
Personally, I would just hate to see Jim, for that matter, be the
discerning factor in deciding who posts and who doesn't based upon
jaded or misinformed judgement and I also find it vulgarly
reprehensible and irresponsible to continue to call a publication a
"rag" when you haven't even read it.
Shen

"Shen" > wrote in message > Agape and Steeping Pot are
blatent in their advertising and the later
> dispicable for its plagiarism. For that alone, as a writer, I am
> outraged and I do hope Adagio sticks it to them.

It was noted in the other discussion that Adagio is the supplier for the tea
in question. Seems reasonable to use their description for their tea.

The Steeping Pot post didn't bother me. It was obvious what the post was,
and I could choose to ignore it, or check out the website. I dislike the
ones that try to hide their identity and come off as if they are a satisfied
customer telling us of their good experience with a vendor. Or, the ones
that jump into every discussion with a reply directing you to their website,
whether it is relevant or not.

Blues