Subject:
|
Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.terms
|
Date:
|
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 17:36:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4996 times
|
| |
|
|
Mike Stanley <cjc@NOSPAMnewsguy.com> wrote:
> Now, by your own estimation, MOST people frown on non-auction solicitations.
> And yet they're ok.
Auctions create a lot more traffic than regular sales. At least thats
what I've always thought was the reason (it's the reason why I don't
read RTL anymore, anyway). They clutter up a newsgroup. Maybe Todd
feels the same way?
--
This only is certain, that there is nothing certain; and nothing
more miserable and yet more arrogant than man.
Pliny The Elder (23-79)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| guito <guito@guito.dhs.org> wrote in message news:slrn8f6lu7.ebp....ome.com... (...) solicitations. (...) As of _now_ there have been 102 posts to .auction and 103 to .bst in the last 7 days. If you add to that the trade posts dotted around all the (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) Not really. Seller run auctions create more traffic because of the constant updates, but ebay auction announcements are usually a single or 2 shot deal. Many B-S-T posts fall in that level of traffic. Yet, many people seem to dislike ebay (...) (25 years ago, 12-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | auction vs non-auction double standard?
|
| (...) messages (...) aren't (...) I keep being amused in a confused kind of way by this seeming double standard. Let me demonstrate how this bst vs auction double standard sounds to me. Some (maybe a lot, maybe just a few really "valuable") people (...) (25 years ago, 11-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.terms) !
|
20 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
|
|
|
|
