|
|
Posted by Bill Vermillion on 10/26/05 21:35
In article <6sjnl1llh2ko44kjtgloar87jlcn68hdtk@4ax.com>,
Bill G <niobrara969@none.invalid> wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:45:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>
>>In article <evbll1tm199hm2q50qcelmbbnn5oc8io7s@4ax.com>,
>>Bill G <niobrara969@none.invalid> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:05:01 GMT, bv@wjv.com (Bill Vermillion) wrote:
>>>
>>>>The list price of the ST-150 probably scares many off, but I found
>>>>a place that sold it for $419 - shipping included. Their sites
>>>>says they will ship within 48 hours. I checked and my order was
>>>>picked up by UPS about 4 hours after I placed it, and got to me
>>>>2 days early. So good price and fast service is hard to find.
>>>>
>>>>If you [or anyone else] wants the name of the place you can send me
>>>>email - as I don't like to post commercial things on Usenet -
>>>>having that inbred into my motions here since I got on the 'net
>>>>in about 1984. [My address has been 'real' since I got on the 'net
>>>>and with proper filters spams is not a problme. [Unix systems and
>>>>my own mail server]
>>>About the only time it's unacceptable to post a commercial reference
>>>is when someone is hawking their own site. If you've found a place
>>>that offers quality goods, at a fair price, and treats the customer
>>>well, I don't know why you'd hesitate to share that info. Big thumbs
>>>down to the group of folks who "trained" you back in 1984. :)
>>In those days much transport was on Arpa net and since a lot was
>>government funded - I remember a lot of posts going through
>>'seismo' - there was to be NO commercial annoucment or appearances
>>thereof.
>Yes, but that was 20-odd years ago. Times have changed.
>>And since anything on the 'net lives forever - I can find posts of
>>mine from the late 1980's - nothing is more frustrating than
>>an http link on information that no longer exists. I'd just as
>>soon have real information.
>I don't think it's frustrating at all. I think most people realize
>that information doesn't always age gracefully, and if someone runs
>across a recommendation that is several years old that ends up hurting
>them, they have no one to blame but themselves. All most people ask,
>when it comes to user experiences being posted, is that the
>information is accurate as of the time that it was posted.
>>And though a vendor may be good today, there is no indication they
>>will be a year from now - and I'd hate to have people browing old
>>posts and getting ripped off if the vendor had changed - and blame
>>me for that.
>I don't know why you'd allow yourself to feel responsible for year-old
>posts when it comes to vendor recommendations. That's like a news
>reporter feeling bad after writing something favorable about a person
>who, a year later, happens to murder someone. If your recommendation
>was accurate at the time that you made it, then it doesn't matter, and
>it doesn't reflect on you one way or the other, if that vendor later
>becomes less favorable.
It's because I've written many things about audio over the years.
One lengthy post in an audio group had a query about printing it,
and I re-wrote and edited it and it became one of the featured
articles. That has been spread around over the years and I'll
still get technical quuestions about it. And I have a series of
articles I wrote for a friends site who requested I write a series.
If it had been about anything except a field I made my living in
for years I might feel differently. I'll stand by my comments on
the product - but since my experience with that vendor is limited
I stand by my comments. On other vendors I've worked with in my
previous field I'd have had no problems recommending vendors
even when things go over the $100K limit.
Since I'm still repsonsible - and support to some extent - some of
the things I've written 15 years ago - I only recommend in print
things/people I'm sure of. And I disagree with the analogy of a
reporter because they don't have involvement, but write about their
observations of others.
>>I often get mail from things I've posted years ago.
>That's your choice. Many people choose not to make themselves
>available via email when posting to Usenet.
If I had done that there'd be people around the world that I would
have never had chance to becomes friends with - even just
electronically.
>>And no one 'trained' me. It was reading the Netiquette, reading
>>the dos/don'ts and learning how to program serial ports to talk
>>with modems and then setting up UUCP for connection to other sites
>>via telephone. My old site in 1986/7 was usually in the top-500
>>of usenet transport sites. All on two high-speed modems [ getting
>>about 19K throughput before the rest of the world had 9600 working
>>properly] and keeping both phone lines running almost coninually.
>By "train", I was referring to this comment: "I don't like to post
>commercial things on Usenet - having that inbred into my motions here
>since I got on the 'net in about 1984"
>I accept and respect your position, but I obviously don't agree with
>it. I'm ok with that and hope you are, too.
No problem. If things on the 'net bothered me I'd not be here
after 20 years. I started in computer communications by setting up
a bulletin board 4 years before IBM brought out the PC.
>Anyway, my apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread. :)
That's the spirit of the 'net. Hi-jack the thread but don't change
the subject line.
))))
))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
---- ))))
---- ))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
))))
))))
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|