hey you all who are associated with websites/stores that sell tea
please put your website in the signature, and a note that youre a
seller.
ex:

-----------------------------------------------
John Doe
Sales Rep www.yourteashop.ext

otherwise it looks like youre a regular.
sorry but youre not, you have an interest in posting in this place.

On May 18, 10:19 pm, SN > wrote:
> hey you all who are associated with websites/stores that sell tea
> please put your website in the signature, and a note that youre a
> seller.
> ex:
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> John Doe
> Sales Repwww.yourteashop.ext
>
> otherwise it looks like youre a regular.
> sorry but youre not, you have an interest in posting in this place.

I have no problem doing this. Maybe this can be added to the charter
so new people in the future will know to do so. I also suggest either
banning advertisements or creating a specific rule regarding the way
advertisements can be presented. With the way the people in this
group react, I think it's only fair to warn people before they post.
Had I been warned - I would have only joined as a consumer and never
would have mentioned the store. Or better yet - since there are so
many active people in the group, maybe there should be some sort of
moderator. Not sure if that workes on a Usenet - I still don't really
understand that aspect of this.

Desirea

The Steeping Pot - www.SteepingPot.com

Commercial posting in this group is implicitly prohibited by the
Charter. For you wordsmiths that means it has to say explicitly say
it is allowed. The Charter can't explain USENET to you. It simply
states the purpose of the discussion group. If you want to post
commercials start your own group with the .marketplace extention and a
Charter that says commercial posting is allowed.

Jim

Desirea wrote:
> On May 18, 10:19 pm, SN > wrote:
> > hey you all who are associated with websites/stores that sell tea
> > please put your website in the signature, and a note that youre a
> > seller.
> > ex:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------
> > John Doe
> > Sales Repwww.yourteashop.ext
> >
> > otherwise it looks like youre a regular.
> > sorry but youre not, you have an interest in posting in this place.
>
> I have no problem doing this. Maybe this can be added to the charter
> so new people in the future will know to do so. I also suggest either
> banning advertisements or creating a specific rule regarding the way
> advertisements can be presented. With the way the people in this
> group react, I think it's only fair to warn people before they post.
> Had I been warned - I would have only joined as a consumer and never
> would have mentioned the store. Or better yet - since there are so
> many active people in the group, maybe there should be some sort of
> moderator. Not sure if that workes on a Usenet - I still don't really
> understand that aspect of this.
>
> Desirea
>
> The Steeping Pot - www.SteepingPot.com

On 18 May 2007 21:01:29 -0700, Desirea > wrote:

>I have no problem doing this. Maybe this can be added to the charter
>so new people in the future will know to do so. I also suggest either
>banning advertisements or creating a specific rule regarding the way
>advertisements can be presented. With the way the people in this
>group react, I think it's only fair to warn people before they post.
>Had I been warned - I would have only joined as a consumer and never
>would have mentioned the store. Or better yet - since there are so
>many active people in the group, maybe there should be some sort of
>moderator. Not sure if that workes on a Usenet - I still don't really
>understand that aspect of this.
>
>Desirea
>
>The Steeping Pot - www.SteepingPot.com

Look, I am going to be honest with you. This is not an attack so
please listen with an open mind.

All this talk about changing the Charter is nothing more than a
placebo as most Marketers never read the Charter, although I do agree
that a clarification of the group's conscience would be nice. Case in
point, you claim that didn't know enough about the USENET to even know
what a Group Charter is or where to find it, so even if it had been in
the charter I sincerely doubt that you would have attempted to read it
before you posted. A Group Charter is only honored by the USENET
savvy.

A wise person will know how strong the currents are before diving
into the river with both feet. You wouldn't go to a new job and start
selling tea to the other employees on your first day on the job, you
would wait and test the waters first, see if the bosses allowed such
personal ventures, see if the employees were open to it, etc. The
USENET is a community, and like any other community it is wise to
learn what is socially acceptable before asserting one's self. As
someone else has said "ignorance is no excuse", particularly since
"online" marketing is your specialty and in online terms the USENET is
even older than the Worldwide Web.

It is pretty clear that you are a Marketing Person who was attempting
to market here. The people here picked up on that pretty quick, they
also made it clear that most marketing is socially taboo here. Had you
monitored the group for a few days BEFORE you started posting you
would have learned a lot about the group, it's climate, and some of
the do's and don'ts.

One of the basic rules of marketing is to know your target audience.
The fact that you did not attempt to learn about the environment in
which you were attempting to market shows less than great judgment.
OK, that can be forgiven, but my advice, in all sincerity, would be to
back off for a while. I am not suggesting that you go away, but rather
that you just shut-up and listen for a while. Observe the group for
a week or two, then contribute when you feel you have something to
offer. All of this defensive posturing is not helping your cause a
bit, it is only alienating you even worse.

If you want to learn something about the community in which you are
trying to insert yourself then you may want to read some of these
links.

A few particularly good USENET FAQs, pay particular attention to
"Usenet Netiquette " section.
http://www.faqs.org/usenet/

Rec.food.drink.tea FAQ
http://pages.ripco.net/~c4ha2na9/tea/faq.html

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

On 19 May 2007 06:20:00 -0700, Space Cowboy >
wrote:

>Commercial posting in this group is implicitly prohibited by the
>Charter. For you wordsmiths that means it has to say explicitly say
>it is allowed.

Jim, have you found a reference that backs this up yet? Since our last
discussion I have read about 20 old USENET FAQs dating back as early
as the Unix Bnews and C-News days and I cant find anything that
supports this claim. Everything I read points to the Charter as being
the governing document, and any prohibitions needing to be explicitly
stated there.

Honestly, I would love to see something official that supports your
claim. Short of that I think that a revision of the Charter to reflect
the group's conscience would be in order.


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

I'm still searching for the smoking gun. I've been posting in USENET
for 12 years and you learn through osmosis. I don't think I'm
spinning my wheels. Maybe the .marketplace extention and explicit
commercial Charter simply puts an end to the ambiguity but I don't
think so. Honestly I am hampered by a failing network card and if I'm
looking at something with more than a 1K forget it which is barely
enough to handle this group of late ;-). In this post USENET also
governs what is allowed in signatures but you see people thinking they
can do what they want. I'll concentrate on what I think is the
immediate commercial problem. I can't go after every transgression.
I can attest to the TCPIP recovery mode requesting lost packets for
correct assembly. My brother-in-law got me a MAC computer from a
University sale and what is typical of MAC bigots doesn't know what
the folder with the alternating smiley face and questions means. I
can't check the MAC groups with the way things are.

Jim

PS Okay I can replace the network card but the motherboard is going
also.

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 19 May 2007 06:20:00 -0700, Space Cowboy >
> wrote:
>
> >Commercial posting in this group is implicitly prohibited by the
> >Charter. For you wordsmiths that means it has to say explicitly say
> >it is allowed.
>
> Jim, have you found a reference that backs this up yet? Since our last
> discussion I have read about 20 old USENET FAQs dating back as early
> as the Unix Bnews and C-News days and I cant find anything that
> supports this claim. Everything I read points to the Charter as being
> the governing document, and any prohibitions needing to be explicitly
> stated there.
>
> Honestly, I would love to see something official that supports your
> claim. Short of that I think that a revision of the Charter to reflect
> the group's conscience would be in order.
>
>
> ___________
> Mike Petro
> http://www.pu-erh.net

On May 19, 11:11 am, Space Cowboy > wrote:
> I'm still searching for the smoking gun. I've been posting in USENET
> for 12 years and you learn through osmosis. I don't think I'm
> spinning my wheels. Maybe the .marketplace extention and explicit
> commercial Charter simply puts an end to the ambiguity but I don't
> think so. Honestly I am hampered by a failing network card and if I'm
> looking at something with more than a 1K forget it which is barely
> enough to handle this group of late ;-). In this post USENET also
> governs what is allowed in signatures but you see people thinking they
> can do what they want. I'll concentrate on what I think is the
> immediate commercial problem. I can't go after every transgression.
> I can attest to the TCPIP recovery mode requesting lost packets for
> correct assembly. My brother-in-law got me a MAC computer from a
> University sale and what is typical of MAC bigots doesn't know what
> the folder with the alternating smiley face and questions means. I
> can't check the MAC groups with the way things are.
>
> Jim
>
> PS Okay I can replace the network card but the motherboard is going
> also.
>
>
>
> Mike Petro wrote:
> > On 19 May 2007 06:20:00 -0700, Space Cowboy >
> > wrote:
>
> > >Commercial posting in this group is implicitly prohibited by the
> > >Charter. For you wordsmiths that means it has to say explicitly say
> > >it is allowed.
>
> > Jim, have you found a reference that backs this up yet? Since our last
> > discussion I have read about 20 old USENET FAQs dating back as early
> > as the Unix Bnews and C-News days and I cant find anything that
> > supports this claim. Everything I read points to the Charter as being
> > the governing document, and any prohibitions needing to be explicitly
> > stated there.
>
> > Honestly, I would love to see something official that supports your
> > claim. Short of that I think that a revision of the Charter to reflect
> > the group's conscience would be in order.
>
> > ___________
> > Mike Petro
> >http://www.pu-erh.net- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I'm perfectly ok with never posting another commercial posting in the
group again. I want to stay in the group more as a consumer than a
vendor, and if you are more comfortable with me adding my site in my
signature - I will do that as well. I've found some very useful
information in this group, and a few interesting blogs. It's simply a
good resource for me to learn new things. I also like getting
suggestions from others on what teas to try based on the ones I've
liked.

Desirea
The Steeping Pot - www.SteepingPot.com

I am a little confused as to what the ruling is here, I do have
commercial interests in the Tea world however I am very happy to
comply and respect the rules and memebers of this forum without
prejudice as my main interest in this group is to learn , share and
discuss information related to the various topics related to tea.

Maurice
Tea Junction
www.tea-junction.com

I've never agreed a HTTP address is a valid USENET signature. See my
previous posts on the subject. In the interim I find it reasonable
the poster state publicly the address is a noncommercial site when
called into question. I find it a specious argument irregardless of
USENET if you agree that commercial advertising is prohibited in the
body of the post but not the signature. Your email and newsgroup
software allows for a signature but my position the USENET signature
is nothing more than name,rank, and serial number because of
antecedence. The WWW uses USENET to generate traffic, pure and
simple. Google has concluded that 50% of websites has malware waiting
to infect your computer often unknown even to the webmaster
compromised after the fact. That is the kind of community you are
dealing with. In your case you showed up using a questionable
commercial HTTP address (I presume because I essentially NEVER
hyperlink out of the group), realized probably not kosher, dropped it
which got my respect when I realized you weren't fishing for marks,
now back because you're not sure of what? You know what this group
has to offer. I refer you to Seb and Houde on Yahoo Groups, vendors
often recommended here, who respect our territory and don't intrude
under the pretense they have something to offer like the tea rag. I
can count on one hand the numbers of times Seb has shown up always on
topic and never an inkling of vested self interest.

Jim

magicleaf wrote:
> I am a little confused as to what the ruling is here, I do have
> commercial interests in the Tea world however I am very happy to
> comply and respect the rules and memebers of this forum without
> prejudice as my main interest in this group is to learn , share and
> discuss information related to the various topics related to tea.
>
> Maurice
> Tea Junction
> www.tea-junction.com

> I've never agreed a HTTP address is a valid USENET signature. See my
> previous posts on the subject. In the interim I find it reasonable the
> poster state publicly the address is a noncommercial site when called into
> question. I find it a specious argument irregardless of USENET if you
> agree that commercial advertising is prohibited in the body of the post
> but not the signature. Your email and newsgroup software allows for a
> signature but my position the USENET signature is nothing more than
> name,rank, and serial number because of antecedence. The WWW uses USENET
> to generate traffic, pure and simple. Google has concluded that 50% of
> websites has malware waiting to infect your computer often unknown even to
> the webmaster compromised after the fact. That is the kind of community
> you are dealing with. In your case you showed up using a questionable
> commercial HTTP address (I presume because I essentially NEVER hyperlink
> out of the group), realized probably not kosher, dropped it which got my
> respect when I realized you weren't fishing for marks, now back because
> you're not sure of what? You know what this group has to offer. I refer
> you to Seb and Houde on Yahoo Groups, vendors often recommended here, who
> respect our territory and don't intrude under the pretense they have
> something to offer like the tea rag. I can count on one hand the numbers
> of times Seb has shown up always on topic and never an inkling of vested
> self interest.


Jim, on the issue of vendors placing their URL's into a signature line,
allow me to respectfully disagree with you. Not only is it a simple way to
provide information without a lot of horn tooting, but it also announces
that the poster is in fact a vendor. Vendors have to have vested interests
different from the rest of us. Therefore, placing the URL is a form of
honest disclosure, and therefore appeciated. That's my opinion.

On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their text.
Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings.
No problem from Adagio's point of view. I wait for their permission
to quote the e-mail content hook, line, and sinker. Shame about Cutty
Sark. Damn.

Cordially,
Michael

On 2007-05-21, Michael Plant > wrote:

> On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their text.
> Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
> supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings.
> No problem from Adagio's point of view.

It makes sense to me. It's normal and common for retailers (in many
industries) to use manufacturers' / distributers' descriptions of a
product. I don't think this is particularly disturbing in and of itself.

As long as our friend is actually reselling Adagio teas / products, it's
not unreasonable for her to use their descriptions.

w

On 05/21/2007 18:30:19 Will Yardley > wrote:

> On 2007-05-21, Michael Plant > wrote:

>> On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their text.
>> Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
>> supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings. No
>> problem from Adagio's point of view.

> It makes sense to me. It's normal and common for retailers (in many
> industries) to use manufacturers' / distributers' descriptions of a
> product. I don't think this is particularly disturbing in and of itself.

> As long as our friend is actually reselling Adagio teas / products, it's
> not unreasonable for her to use their descriptions.


Yes, and here is the full quote from Adagio. A few minutes ago they e-mailed
permission to quote them.
Michael

QUOTE
Hi Michael,
Thank you for your note. We have on occasion permitted people to borrow
descriptions and photos when requested. Some people use it verbatim and
others mix the words around a little. Most people that repeat us verbatim
mention us as a supplier or sell in our branded packaging. As a supplier,
they do get their information about the teas from us, and they have chose to
use our descriptions word for word. Hope this information helps!
Thank you for visiting Adagio Teas!
Kind regards,
Customer Service\
UNQUOTE

> On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio....

What the bloody hell does Adagio have to do with the Kosher thing?
That was a different discussion. I'm getting senile in my old age.
Ignore me completely.
Michael

well i would have liked to have the vendors also state they're 'sales'
or 'vendor' along with the website
because some of us have websites that do not sell anything,
and:
-----------------
Jimmy Bob
www.super-duper-white-tea-is-the-best.com

you cant know that www.etc is a tea store or tea review or tea blog

but
-----------------
Jimmy Bob
Sales dude www.super-duper-white-tea-is-the-best.com

theres 99% certainty that JB is sales rep from www...

actually i dont really expect this to work because in a couple weeks
this thread will not be seen
and even so spammers/ buttmunch vendors wont follow any rules/charters
anyway...
and theres no moderation on usenet

On May 21, 6:59 pm, SN > wrote:
> well i would have liked to have the vendors also state they're 'sales'
> or 'vendor' along with the website
> because some of us have websites that do not sell anything,
> and:
> -----------------
> Jimmy Bobwww.super-duper-white-tea-is-the-best.com
>
> you cant know thatwww.etcis a tea store or tea review or tea blog
>
> but
> -----------------
> Jimmy Bob
> Sales dudewww.super-duper-white-tea-is-the-best.com
>
> theres 99% certainty that JB is sales rep from www...
>
> actually i dont really expect this to work because in a couple weeks
> this thread will not be seen
> and even so spammers/ buttmunch vendors wont follow any rules/charters
> anyway...
> and theres no moderation on usenet

There is another Usenet group that posts a quick FAQ - Rules type
posting daily, so no matter what you can't help but see it. Maybe
someone who's really active in the group could volunteer to be that
person. You can see an example he

http://groups.google.com/group/biz.g...999bef4e 5513

Desirea
The Steeping Pot - www.SteepingPot.com

On May 21, 3:30 pm, Will Yardley >
wrote:
> On 2007-05-21, Michael Plant > wrote:
>
> > On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their text.
> > Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
> > supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings.
> > No problem from Adagio's point of view.
>
> It makes sense to me. It's normal and common for retailers (in many
> industries) to use manufacturers' / distributers' descriptions of a
> product. I don't think this is particularly disturbing in and of itself.
>
> As long as our friend is actually reselling Adagio teas / products, it's
> not unreasonable for her to use their descriptions.
>
> w

Adagio pays people to write THEIR copy, not someone else's. As a
practitioner, I resell many supplements and NEVER, not once, have I
been able to post their copy as my own.
I have been out of town and have not caught up: has anyone heard from
Adagio directly regarding this practice.
Truthfully, I cannot see one single reason, as a good business
practice, to support your competitor with item descriptions. If they
are actually doing this, it does seem a bit ridiculous.
Shen

"Shen" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 21, 3:30 pm, Will Yardley >
> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-21, Michael Plant > wrote:
>>
>> > On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their
>> > text.
>> > Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
>> > supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings.
>> > No problem from Adagio's point of view.
>>
>> It makes sense to me. It's normal and common for retailers (in many
>> industries) to use manufacturers' / distributers' descriptions of a
>> product. I don't think this is particularly disturbing in and of itself.
>>
>> As long as our friend is actually reselling Adagio teas / products, it's
>> not unreasonable for her to use their descriptions.
>>
>> w
>
> Adagio pays people to write THEIR copy, not someone else's. As a
> practitioner, I resell many supplements and NEVER, not once, have I
> been able to post their copy as my own.
> I have been out of town and have not caught up: has anyone heard from
> Adagio directly regarding this practice.
> Truthfully, I cannot see one single reason, as a good business
> practice, to support your competitor with item descriptions. If they
> are actually doing this, it does seem a bit ridiculous.
> Shen
>

"Shen" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 21, 3:30 pm, Will Yardley >
> wrote:
>> On 2007-05-21, Michael Plant > wrote:
>>
>> > On the kosher thing, I asked Adagio their position on quoting their
>> > text.
>> > Adagio's customer service rep e-mailed me to say that the vendors they
>> > supply do indeed quote from their descriptions with their blessings.
>> > No problem from Adagio's point of view.
>>
>> It makes sense to me. It's normal and common for retailers (in many
>> industries) to use manufacturers' / distributers' descriptions of a
>> product. I don't think this is particularly disturbing in and of itself.
>>
>> As long as our friend is actually reselling Adagio teas / products, it's
>> not unreasonable for her to use their descriptions.
>>
>> w
>
> Adagio pays people to write THEIR copy, not someone else's. As a
> practitioner, I resell many supplements and NEVER, not once, have I
> been able to post their copy as my own.
> I have been out of town and have not caught up: has anyone heard from
> Adagio directly regarding this practice.
> Truthfully, I cannot see one single reason, as a good business
> practice, to support your competitor with item descriptions. If they
> are actually doing this, it does seem a bit ridiculous.
> Shen

In the post you quoted, Michael states that he heard from Adagio directly.
Why is someone selling their product a competitor. It means more sales for
them. On their website, under emplyment opportunities, they are looking for
someone to help promote sales of their product in other stores.

Most of my retail experience is in musical products, but the manufaturers
descriptions is almost always used. You can look up a musical product and
most websites that sell it will have the same picture and the same
disctription.

Blues

Michael,

Your posts are less frequent these days. I hope things are okay. The
last time I looked you were the only person ahead of me of in all time
posts. I might be sneaking up especially of late. Say a post shows
up with only a sig containg a commercial http link. I still submit it
is a commercial post. Now the post shows up with a body and the same
information. Nothing has changed it still is a commercial post. Or
some wordsmith argues any commercial advertising in the post is part
of the sig. You couldn't argue a sig couldn't be interpersed in a
post without knowing what USENET says about sigs. From what I
remember on sigs besides name,rank,serialnumber you are allowed
credentials,credidation similar to what you find on a resume. You see
people using it to give weight to their arguments. I don't see why
the WWW would change that. I chalk up a sig with a noncommercial HTTP
address as bad form but one with commercial address as a form of bait
and switch. I don't even need informative posts to link you to my
commercial website. People using it have bad motives and I guarantee
not one is a member of the BBB.

Jim

Michael Plant wrote:
> Jim, on the issue of vendors placing their URL's into a signature line,
> allow me to respectfully disagree with you. Not only is it a simple way to
> provide information without a lot of horn tooting, but it also announces
> that the poster is in fact a vendor. Vendors have to have vested interests
> different from the rest of us. Therefore, placing the URL is a form of
> honest disclosure, and therefore appeciated. That's my opinion.

On 2007-05-22, Space Cowboy > wrote:

> You couldn't argue a sig couldn't be interpersed in a post without
> knowing what USENET says about sigs. From what I remember on sigs
> besides name,rank,serialnumber you are allowed credentials,credidation
> similar to what you find on a resume.

What are you talking about? A sig should be 4 lines or less, at the
bottom of the post (under your message and the TRIMMED quoted text), and
should have two dashes, a space, and a newline right before it. As far
as what it should contain... that's up to the person the sig belongs to.

I will be amazed if you can find anything suggesting that a web address
(commercial or not) is bad form in a sig.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/adve.../how-to/part1/

has some interesting information pertinent to several of the discussions
we've been having, including this one. The signature FAQ itself doesn't
say much other than how to create a signature for various newsreaders.
The advertising FAQ specifically mentions advertising via your sig,
though says:

Similarly, it's considered bad manners to put an advertisement
in your .signature and then post a lot of empty or nearly-empty
articles simply to get your .signature into various newsgroups.

w

"Space Cowboy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Michael,
>
> Your posts are less frequent these days. I hope things are okay. The
> last time I looked you were the only person ahead of me of in all time
> posts. I might be sneaking up especially of late. Say a post shows
> up with only a sig containg a commercial http link. I still submit it
> is a commercial post. Now the post shows up with a body and the same
> information. Nothing has changed it still is a commercial post. Or
> some wordsmith argues any commercial advertising in the post is part
> of the sig. You couldn't argue a sig couldn't be interpersed in a
> post without knowing what USENET says about sigs. From what I
> remember on sigs besides name,rank,serialnumber you are allowed
> credentials,credidation similar to what you find on a resume. You see
> people using it to give weight to their arguments. I don't see why
> the WWW would change that. I chalk up a sig with a noncommercial HTTP
> address as bad form but one with commercial address as a form of bait
> and switch. I don't even need informative posts to link you to my
> commercial website. People using it have bad motives and I guarantee
> not one is a member of the BBB.
>
> Jim

Jim,

I don't know the whole history of Usenet and signatures and commercial
ventures. But, what you are saying about including links makes sense.
Adding a link is adding a link. Although, to me, there is a difference
between adding a link after a message that adds to the groups discussion,
and just posting a link to drum up business. Personally the adds that are
blatant don't bother me. Sometimes I check them out. Most of the time I
see that they don't have anything of interest to me. I do dislike the
deceitful post that try to appear to be from an impartial customer, but come
from someone associated with the website. And, I would hate to see this
newsgroup get bogged down with advertisements.

I see the other point also. You mentioned that signatures are used to give
weight to the poster's arguments. I think what is being proposed does the
same thing, It may not add weight to their argument, but it helps us
determine how much weight to give what they are saying based on biases they
may have because of their commercial venture.

Blues

I agree with the USENET tenor of the mentioned link. I'll give you
the noncommercial HTTP sig. I won't give you the commercial HTTP sig
in a noncommercial discussion group. What does a four line sig mean
if no cr/lf or one long runon sentence with no grammatical
punctuation? Would an imbedded sight and sound sig be appropriate
where binaries are prohibited? Can an http sig link to anything? You
still are forced to explain the purpose of the USENET sig beyond some
physical specification. The original USENET meaning has been hijacked
by incorrect WWW usage.

Jim

PS Everyone says 4 lines but that probably came from your Newsreader
or Email software or Unix as mentioned in the post. I'm not sure what
USENET says beyond name,rank,serialnumber which is three lines or one
if you cheat.

Will Yardley wrote:
> On 2007-05-22, Space Cowboy > wrote:
>
> > You couldn't argue a sig couldn't be interpersed in a post without
> > knowing what USENET says about sigs. From what I remember on sigs
> > besides name,rank,serialnumber you are allowed credentials,credidation
> > similar to what you find on a resume.
>
> What are you talking about? A sig should be 4 lines or less, at the
> bottom of the post (under your message and the TRIMMED quoted text), and
> should have two dashes, a space, and a newline right before it. As far
> as what it should contain... that's up to the person the sig belongs to.
>
> I will be amazed if you can find anything suggesting that a web address
> (commercial or not) is bad form in a sig.
>
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/adve.../how-to/part1/
>
> has some interesting information pertinent to several of the discussions
> we've been having, including this one. The signature FAQ itself doesn't
> say much other than how to create a signature for various newsreaders.
> The advertising FAQ specifically mentions advertising via your sig,
> though says:
>
> Similarly, it's considered bad manners to put an advertisement
> in your .signature and then post a lot of empty or nearly-empty
> articles simply to get your .signature into various newsgroups.
>
> w