Posted by Bill G on 10/23/05 18:13

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.

>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.

>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.

Anyway, my apologies to the OP for hijacking the thread. :)

--
Bill

[Back to original message]