Subject:
|
Re: .market.auction & crossposting
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Dec 1999 04:24:42 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@noveraSTOPSPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
176 times
|
| |
|
|
To the viewing audience:
I'm sparring with Todd here in this particular instance because it's fun
to see two pedants clash, not because I have some major beef... He's
mostly right but you'll never get me to admit it.
Todd Lehman wrote:
>
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Todd Lehman wrote:
> > > I'd like to improve the server's ability to automatically enforce the
> > > "no-auctions outside of auction groups" rule.
> >
> > I think this is a bad idea and the post I just did to market.auction is
> > a prime example of why.
>
> Is what you did the only way to start such a discussion? For example, what
> about posting the actual auction announcement first in .market.auction
> (where it technically belongs, according to the T&C for discussion groups),
> then posting the important bits separately and simply refer to the auction
> posting in place of the other link.
Arguably it's not the only way but it was faster than doing two posts
and not that much different in outcome... Therefore better. :-) (since
we're arguing)
> > At least *I* think it is. It is about an
> > auction, but it's far more significant (at least I think it is) as
> > something new in our little world than as just another flog.
>
> Heh heh. OK, it is more significant than just an ordinary auction
> announcement, no doubt about that. But by your rationale, you could have
> included a recipe for peanut butter and jelly sandwiches beneath your
> auction URL and justified crossposted it to .off-topic.yummy-foods.recipes.
Well, no. Not unless there was in some way a tie in between PB&J and the
auction posting... That's not the rationale I was using. The rationale
is that the post was about the fact that I thought ground was being
broken (turns out Blackened may have beat me to the punch but his items
aren't sparking the discussion that this post created...) and what the
implications of that were, NOT that something was on offer and would you
please go look at it and bid and oh by the way here's a tidbit about
trains so I can cross post to .trains and one about cad so I can cross
post to .cad
> I can completely understand it if you see it that way, but answer me this:
> Did you not just (how do I word this without sounding pedantic?) break the
> T&C? You announced an auction, yes? So by definition, that's an auction
> announcement, right?
Well, no, I didn't *announce* the auction, to be pedantic. What I did
was *mention* it to set context for what followed. Arguably I should not
have tagged it "[FA] - eBay" but that's jut me being polite, or typing
too fast/instinctively.
> > In fact it's not a flog,
>
> I don't know what a flog(n) is, so I can't agree or disagree with that.
flog in this context is to aggressively promote the sale of...
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=flog
meaning #2
> > there's no solicitation of bidding in it, unlike my standard flogs.
>
> Hmmm. I have respectfully disagree with the assertion that there is no
> solicitation of bidding in it. Absent of a disclaimer to the contrary,
> I think it is a solicitation of bidding. Any post where the first thirteen
> characters of the Subject go
>
> Subject: [FA] - eBay -
>
> and contains a URL of an actual auction currently underway within the first
> few lines, is clearly a solicitation of bidding, isn't it?
No, not the way I construed it. Mere mention of existence is not
solicitation. Solicitation requires an offer.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=solicitation
meaning #2 of verb transitive (NOT meaning #2 of verb INtransitive,
thank you very much, this being a family forum and all)
Nowhere in the post does it say "hey go check it out and consider buying
it" or any words that could be construed to carry that effect. And in
fact, no one participating in the .theory discussion has bid on it! The
only bid it has so far is from someone I do not recognise. That's a very
weak argument in support of intent, but it is one.
> And if it's not, but then what does the subject line alone say?
>
> (a) Subject: [FA] - eBay - Lego CUSTOM: - Unique 4 axle custom Hopper
>
> (b) Subject: Discussion: Historic new auction lot
Got me there, if I had the power to revise, I would. But I can't cancel
and repost without breaking a pretty big post tree at this point.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: .market.auction & crossposting
|
| (...) My opinion is with Todd on this one - it is a mild form of silicitation, I think. (...) Arguably, those people flog as well. Both themselves and others ;) (...) And that's the crucial point between a solicitation and a mention. I would also (...) (25 years ago, 13-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: .market.auction & crossposting
|
| (...) Is what you did the only way to start such a discussion? For example, what about posting the actual auction announcement first in .market.auction (where it technically belongs, according to the T&C for discussion groups), then posting the (...) (25 years ago, 12-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
