WHat is Spam

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:

Well, you could call it a commercial I guess, but I'd call it an
endorsement. It's the honest, unbiased endorsement that makes this
place such a valuable resource.

and...

It's far better to let other people praise your product than to
do it yourself.


Its not a perfect world Ken. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to
make it so, but this tiny little laboratory of ROFB is such a restricted
environment that it is hardly worth your time and effort. I have never seen
a newsgroup with such limited membership. When I subscribed to
alt.food.wine, we had hundreds if not thousands of contributors from around
the world. I know it is hard to imagine considering the group topic, but
the wine ng got so damned stuffy it was hard to breathe in there. We got
overrun with finger-pointers, net narcs, and blowhards. The one thing I
like about this group is its seeming lack of insufferable little twits. I
hope we don't go the way of the winos.

As far as the inventors and product guys on this ng go, from my perspective
they are taking an incredibly dangerous position by having their stuff in
front of a group of very talented and experienced bassers. Let's say Chris
gets some of Randy's crystal sticks and tells the rest of us they suck.
Randy gets his fanny spanked in front of a fairly discriminating group.
There are easier ways to advertise and with much less risk of losing face.

Perhaps a moderated group is what you are looking for. Rec.guns has a very
active ng with humdreds of contributors and one of the best moderators I
have ever seen. Anyone here wish to spend a significant portion of their
life reviewing and approving messages?

One of the problems with usenet is it has been overtaken by other
technologies. In my humble opinion, it is a dying format. I can go on
BassHoles and get all kinds of semi-moderated information on fishing,
techniques, lures, etc. Ted Young is a fantastic contributor over there and
has almost completed his migration there from the ESPN groups where he still
occasionally holds court. Want to get an instructional on how to spool up
briad? Go to ESPN or BassHoles and do a search or view a sticky. We don't
have the ability to do much more than hold short conversations about things,
and those conversations usually have a very short lifespan.

So again in mvho, I look forward to seeing what the few contibutors on this
group have to say and have no problem with what I have read to date.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:
Well, you could call it a commercial I guess, but I'd call it an
endorsement. It's the honest, unbiased endorsement that makes this
place such a valuable resource.

and...
It's far better to let other people praise your product than to
do it yourself.

Its not a perfect world Ken. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to
make it so, but this tiny little laboratory of ROFB is such a restricted
environment that it is hardly worth your time and effort. I have never seen
a newsgroup with such limited membership. ...

Just because this little corner of cyberspace isn't well populated
at this particular moment in time doesn't mean a non-commercial Usenet
newsgroup should be allowed to become a commercial newsgroup.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Well said Rodney.

"Rodney Long" wrote in message
...
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Chris S wrote:
Sorry Ken but is your take on this so called spam....thats just your
opinion and you know they are just like AH everyone got one

No, not just my opinion, the opinion of many people who have
participated in Usenet newsgroups long enough to know that
commercials have no place in a non-commercial newsgroup.

The real question here is "what" constitutes a commercial ?

If any person starts singing the praises of the Honey Toad on this group,
is that a commercial ? if he does so, then list a place on the internet
where he buys them cheap, does this make it a commercial ?

I have never seen you jump anyone who has done this in the past, as long
as this was not "their" web site. It is still a "commercial" the best kind
a manufacturer, or tackle store could get.

Ken I agree with you, we don't want post like this every day, week or even
month.

"Check out my new darting minnow, you can buy them at
http://dartingminnow.com"

Coming from a non contributing person who is only out there trying to sell
his lures. or even from a long time contributing member. This "is" a
commercial, and is even "spam" if it is cross posted to many groups.

No person or company can survive in the tackle industry talking about his
products in a couple of, or even many news groups. It's just not a very
effective means of letting the world know, actually it is Non productive
waste of a persons time, just too few customers. One story in Bassmaster
reaches 2,000,000 bass fishermen. One local tackle trade show reaches
thousands. This group, maybe 100 lurkers and 30 contributers . It is not
worth the time for a manufacturer to spend time contributing to the group,
and that is why "real spammers" just cross post a "commercial" from time
to time. It is only the click of the mouse.

I come here not to make money, I come because I love to fish and to share
my success. I could spend my time "making" money elsewhere, instead of
posting to this group. The time I "waste" here could be used in contacting
more stores to sell my products, which is profitable.

So my time here is just because I like talking to other fishermen, about
fishing, and I do all of my fishing using my rig. No person in the World
can fish my technique better than me. I have thousands of hours on the
water using it. I could care less to my bottom line, if people here "buy"
it, just not enough money here to matter. That's why I sent so many
members free product. I just want them catching more fish. Eventually, my
plan is to supply every regular member here "free" product for life.(now
that's not to mean every lurker who comes by, as that could get into the
thousands of fishermen once the word gets out all you have to do is come
to this group to get "all" your wiggle rigs for free) This offer is to all
the ones who have "already" taken advantage of my free offer over the last
week or two. (a large number of people here by the way)

I would be talking about the Wiggle rig here much, much, much, more if I
didn't invent it. Just because it is so effective. The reason I have not
is obvious.



--
Rodney Long
SpecTastic tackle company

http://spectastictackle.com/

Rodney Long wrote in :

If any person starts singing the praises of the Honey Toad on this
group, is that a commercial ?

Sounds pretty easy to me. If that person sells Honey Toad, it's spam if
the post includes directions on how to buy it.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:
Just because this little corner of cyberspace isn't well populated
at this particular moment in time doesn't mean a non-commercial Usenet
newsgroup should be allowed to become a commercial newsgroup.


Well, this crystallizes the argument du jour. You represent the small
population which believes those few amongst us who have comment or
connection in this group to their own product lines have crossed the
commercial Rubicon. I appear to be in the small population who believes
they have not. The question is what to do?

Ban them for life - if that can be done at all? Hector them into digital
submission? If they are so reprehensive, why not just *plonk* them? There
aren't so many as to be an onerous job.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message:
Just because this little corner of cyberspace isn't well populated
at this particular moment in time doesn't mean a non-commercial Usenet
newsgroup should be allowed to become a commercial newsgroup.

snip
If they are so reprehensive, why not just *plonk* them? There
aren't so many as to be an onerous job.

Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ...
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.


Ken, I would never deign to speak for someone else. Not under any
circumstances. As far as I am concerned, we are all on our own in word and
deed.

What I see in this discussion is a reference to behaviors that are
objectionable and (to me in my view of the argument) reprehensive in the
eyes of others. A violation of the normative purity of usenet, eh?

So, your objections to these guys are purely philosophical? Good to hear
you think they are the good guys. I don't know any of them from Adam's
house cat and I have no idea if they are good guys or not. However, I don't
find what they say problematic.

As interesting as this is, I have to sign off and take the Pugs to the vet's
for an oil change.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message ...
Don't put words in my mouth. I have never referred to Rodney,
SWL or GoToBaits as reprehensive. In fact, I refer to them as
the good guys.

...
So, your objections to these guys are purely philosophical? Good to hear
you think they are the good guys. ...

There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.


Sorry Ken, I knew Ronald Reagan and you're no Ronald Regan :-)

Since I take it you are speaking in very generalized terms with no specific
people in mind, I guess this conversation has run aground. Rodney and
Randy, "you guys" appear to be off the hook.

It's Miller Time Ken. Pop one of those Buds and keep on thinking good
thoughts.

johnval1 wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
There you go again. I have no objections whatsoever to "these guys".
My objections are solely related to Usenet SPAM, commercials posted
to a non-commercial Usenet newsgroup. Any one of the folks mentioned
in this thread could have my next-to-last Budweiser or a seat in the
front of my canoe or both.

Sorry Ken, I knew Ronald Reagan and you're no Ronald Regan :-)

Since I take it you are speaking in very generalized terms with no specific
people in mind, I guess this conversation has run aground. Rodney and
Randy, "you guys" appear to be off the hook.

Why do you want to posit personalities into a discussion of SPAM ?
I can disagree with folks without finding them "reprehensive" or
"objectionable", apparently you have some difficulty in that regard.
You sound to me like a troublemaker. You suggested I *plonk* some
long-time contributors to this forum but if all you have to contribute
is s***-stirring I'd be better advised to just *plonk* you.

And get yourself a real dog, pugs are for sissies.

--
Ken Fortenberry