Most people don't realize that they spend hundreds or even thousands of
dollars a year buying the heavily advertised (HA) brand products in the
grocery and department stores. There is nothing in the grocery store that
is rocket science. Many of the less advertised (LA) brands or store brands
are just as good or better as the HA brands. You are paying for the
brainwashing that many HA brand manufacturers put in their advertising
campaigns. It is not difficult to make shampoos, conditioners, cleaning
products and all those other products that can be found in your local
grocery or department store. Why are you paying 4+ dollars for baby shampoo
when you can buy the less advertised brand for half the money? Do you like
wasting money? If the name brand products are better why would companies be
spending billions of dollars in advertising? The answer is that they are
not better. They are trying to convince you that the high price they are
charging is some how justified by a better product. Even over the counter
drugs like aspirin can be bought for half the price of the HA brands. This
is a product that has been around for decades. The LA products are under
the same FDA regulations as the HA brands. Save a lot of money and don't
buy the over priced HA brands.

When you pay the higher price for the HA brands you are paying for the
ridiculous high salaries of the CEO's, private jets, golden parachutes and
for the billions spent on advertising.

Every time you go to the store you can save several dollars. Over time this
can amount to a significant amount of money.

New Guy wrote:

Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?

Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?

Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
counterparts?

In other words - is this an example of "professional" usenet spam, as
part of a public marketing campaign?

Are there any known examples of this type of usenet spam?

Is there no way for these posts to be filtered properly by cleanfeed and
noceum?

Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic, or that it has
been posted before does not make it spam.

On Usenet, being BI 20 makes it spam. The OP is working on it, but he
isn't there yet.

That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been directly on topic.

My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to newsgroups
verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't appear to be the case.

I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it says. What
the OP doesn't mention is that sometimes store brands are noticeably
inferior to the brand names.

By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the spammer an
enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its entirety in your reply. The
spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many individuals
newsreaders.

By re-posting the entire article from your account, you enabled him to
effectively evade all filters.

--
Tony Sivori
Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.

Tony Sivori wrote:

Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on
usenet?

Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic, or that
it has been posted before does not make it spam.

A posting is spam if the poster's intent is not to seek an answer to a
question, or if the poster does not seek (or intend) to start a
conversation. This is especially true if the same post is made on a
periodic basis, and mischief is employed in the headers (ie - bogus
follow-up group list). Obviously, periodic posting of newsgroup
charters or FAQ's is not spam.

On Usenet, being BI 20 makes it spam. The OP is working on
it, but he isn't there yet.

I have no idea what any of that means.

That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been
directly on topic.

I have seen these anti-brand-name posts in groups other than
misc.consumers.*, where they are clearly off-topic.

My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to
newsgroups verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't
appear to be the case.

If you feel those posts are justified or above reproach, then so too is
my post asking who would have a motive to post them. It's an odd topic
to develop a posting-fetish over.

I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it
says.

So how often, and in how many groups, is it legit to post it too?

I don't give a **** about generic vs brand name. I think anyone who's
got enough brain cells to be able to read usenet also knows enough about
the differences between generic and brand name stuff.

In fact, what's missing from that post is the nugget of information that
most every consumable product (procesed foods, shampoo, etc) are made in
a handful of mega-plants, and just before they come off the end of the
line they get slapped with various brand-name or generic labels. It's
more than just the idea that brand-name is frequently the same quality
as generic - it's that they're often made by the same plant.

By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the
spammer an enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its
entirety in your reply.

If it was such an enormous favor, then the spammer could have simply
posted it again today, and again tommorrow, etc.

But I don't think it was any favor to shine a critical light on his
posts, speculting why he's posting it, his motives, who he might be,
etc. I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that. But I don't expect he knows
because he doesn't participate in usenet beyond spamming it.

The spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many
individuals newsreaders.

The news server that I use does indeed employ one or two some-what
sophisticated and distributed spam-removal mechanisms. But the post in
question obviously was not picked up as spam.

By re-posting the entire article from your account, you
enabled him to effectively evade all filters.

My intent was to start a conversation about who he might be, and the
motives for his posts. If others did not see his original post because
it was filtered from their server, then my inclusion of his post serves
to provide an example that is necessary to further the conversation for
those people.

New Guy wrote
Tony Sivori wrote

Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?

Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic,
or that it has been posted before does not make it spam.

A posting is spam if the poster's intent is not to seek an answer to a question,

Wrong. Usenet is about a hell of a lot more than just questions.

or if the poster does not seek (or intend) to start a conversation.

Thats wrong too. There have always been plenty of announcements
in usenet and quite a few individuals just pointing out what they have
just discovered, particularly in the technical newsgroups. Its never
been just about conversations.

This is especially true if the same post is made on a periodic basis,

Wrong again. That doesnt make it spam automatically.

There have always been some individuals that post a list of where
things are up to in a particular field, most obviously with encryption etc.

Thats mainly done to reduce the frequency of common questions being asked.

Thats always been an alternative to a web site doing that.

and mischief is employed in the headers (ie - bogus follow-up group list).

That isnt mischief.

Obviously, periodic posting of newsgroup charters or FAQ's is not spam.

So much for your previous stupid claim.

On Usenet, being BI 20 makes it spam.
The OP is working on it, but he isn't there yet.

I have no idea what any of that means.

Its one way of automating the detection of spam, using that index.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breidbart_Index

That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been
directly on topic.

Its just as on topic in the ones he posted to.

I have seen these anti-brand-name posts in groups other
than misc.consumers.*, where they are clearly off-topic.

You get to like that or lump it.

My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to newsgroups
verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't appear to be the case.

If you feel those posts are justified or above reproach, then so
too is my post asking who would have a motive to post them.

That comment of his is about something completely different,
whether its just posting a web page to usenet or not.

It's an odd topic to develop a posting-fetish over.

Thats what fetishes are. Very odd indeed the bulk of them.

I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it says.

So how often, and in how many groups, is it legit to post it too?

There is no nice tidy number.

There isnt with FAQs or charters either.

I don't give a **** about generic vs brand name.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read those posts.

If someone is doing that, call the cops.

I think anyone who's got enough brain cells to be able to read usenet also
knows enough about the differences between generic and brand name stuff.

Doesnt matter a damn what you think. He gets to post anyway.

In fact, what's missing from that post is the nugget of information
that most every consumable product (procesed foods, shampoo, etc) are
made in a handful of mega-plants, and just before they come off the end
of the line they get slapped with various brand-name or generic labels.

That is a lie. The generics that are more than just basic ingredients like say
sugar, are different in detail to the most expensive brand name products.

It's more than just the idea that brand-name is frequently the same
quality as generic - it's that they're often made by the same plant.

But not necessarily with identical ingredients.

If they were, it wouldnt be possible to pick any difference using
double blind trials and that is clearly possible, so there must be
different ingredients with other than the most basic stuff like sugar.

Even flour isnt all identical.

By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the
spammer an enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its
entirety in your reply.

If it was such an enormous favor, then the spammer could
have simply posted it again today, and again tommorrow, etc.

That wouldnt bypass filters.

But I don't think it was any favor to shine a critical light on his posts,
speculting why he's posting it, his motives, who he might be, etc.

Certainly does to post the ENTIRITY of his original, which those
who had filtered them away would not have seen till you did that.

I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that.

More fool you.

But I don't expect he knows because he doesn't
participate in usenet beyond spamming it.

You have absolutely no idea whether he reads responses to his posts or not.

ALL you know is that he doesnt reply to responses.

The spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many
individuals newsreaders.

The news server that I use does indeed employ one or two some-what
sophisticated and distributed spam-removal mechanisms. But the post
in question obviously was not picked up as spam.

Because it isnt spam.

By re-posting the entire article from your account,
you enabled him to effectively evade all filters.

My intent was to start a conversation about who he might be, and the
motives for his posts. If others did not see his original post
because it was filtered from their server, then my inclusion of his
post serves to provide an example that is necessary to further the
conversation for those people.

Thats wrong too. Just including a few lines from the original would
have made it clear what you were talking about and anyone who
had chosen to filter it away who wanted to check the original could
just go back to the original to see the full original. And those who
had chosen to filter it away would not be stuck with seeing it when
you reposted it in full and had that bypass their filter that they had
deliberately set up so they would not see it again.

Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?


Some people are "giving type" people and like to share. (As opposed to the
selfish "me" generation people who are only capable of thinking about
themselves.)

Some people are "more intelligent" than others and teach others what they
know. For example these people might see others with financial difficulties
spending their money foolishly. And they are simply pointing out ways to
better manage money. And thus rectify the financial difficulties in
question.

As to generic vs name brand, in many cases both products are made by the
same company! They make the SAME profit by selling either! The only
difference is they tack on the cost of advertising to the name brand
product.

Bill wrote:
Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?


Some people are "giving type" people and like to share. (As opposed
to the selfish "me" generation people who are only capable of
thinking about themselves.)

Some people are "more intelligent" than others and teach others what
they know. For example these people might see others with financial
difficulties spending their money foolishly. And they are simply
pointing out ways to better manage money. And thus rectify the
financial difficulties in question.

As to generic vs name brand, in many cases both products are made by the same company!

Yes.

They make the SAME profit by selling either!

Nope.

The only difference is they tack on the cost of advertising to the name brand product.

Its MUCH more complicated than that.

In article , New Guy wrote:
Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?

Yes: you are. This one, at least. I didn't see it, and never would have, if
you hadn't reposted it.

Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?

You tell me.

Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
counterparts?

I imagine. How much they paying you, anyway, to repost the spam posts after
they're cancelled by the ISPs?

Bill wrote:

Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?

Some people are "giving type" people and like to share.

If that's true in this case, then should there be more postings from the
same author, on different topics perhaps?

A google groups search for posts by the author " shows
posts with these subjects:

- Save Money
- Not Rocket Science

In these newsgroups:

- uk.people.consumers
- misc.kids.consumers
- misc.kids.health
- misc.consumer
- misc.consumer.house
- misc.consumers
- misc.consumers.home
- misc.consumers.house
- alt.consumer
- alt.consumer.free-stuff
- alt.consumers
- alt.consumers.experiences
- aus.consumers
- alt.pharm.indust
- alt.pharmacy.health.informatics
- alt.make.money
- americast.usa-today.money
- americast.usa-today.news
- americast.ushead.money
- alt.alternative.health
- soc.senior.health+fitness
- soc.senior.issues
- net.medicine.public-health.general
- net.medicine.public-health.drugs
- net.medicine.research.general
- net.medicine.support.general

In not one of those cases, where the post spawned a conversational
thread, did "Dr. Smith" return to the thread to participate in the
conversation.

Here we see the same message posted 5 times to alt.health within the
span of a few minutes:

http://tinyurl.com/ybey4o9

These posts have also been made by someone using the handle "Ziggy" to
these newsgroups:

- microsoft.public.biztalk.general
- microsoft.public.biztalk.jumpstart
- microsoft.public.biztalk.newuser
- microsoft.public.biztalk.server
- microsoft.public.biztalk.xsharp
- microsoft.public.bookshelf
- microsoft.public.br.applicationcenter
- microsoft.public.br.certificacoes
- microsoft.public.br.design.gallery
- alt.fan.states.new-york
- alt.fan.states.north-carolina
- alt.fan.states.north-dakota
- alt.fan.states.ohio
- alt.fan.states.oklahoma
- alt.fan.states.oregon
- alt.fan.states.pennslvania
- alt.fan.states.rhode-island
- alt.fan.states.south-carolina
- alt.fan.states.south-dakota
- alt.fan.states.tennessee
- alt.fan.states.texas
- alt.fan.states.utah
- alt.fan.states.vermont
- alt.fan.states.virginia
- alt.fan.states.washington
- alt.fan.states.west-virginia
- cmi.consumer
- free.uk.scotland.help-consumers
- can.consumers
- rec.photo.35mm
- rec.music.trumpet
- rec.music.makers.piano
- rec.games.chess
- comp.music.midi
- alt.tv.tech.hdtv
- alt.tv.tech
- alt.music.home-studio

And probably hundreds if not thousands of other newsgroups.

If this doesn't constitute usenet spamming, then nothing does.

Some people are "more intelligent" than others and teach others
what they know.

This is not teaching. This is spamming.

For example these people might see others with financial
difficulties spending their money foolishly. And they are
simply pointing out ways to better manage money. And thus
rectify the financial difficulties in question.

Do you believe it is proper to post messages like this to usenet, to
hundreds or more groups?

If you believe that, then there is nothing that can't be justified when
it comes to mass usenet posting. Then nothing can really be classified
as abuse or spam when it comes to usenet according to that logic.

I believe these posts are some sort of professionally orchestrated
effort, perhaps by a marketing company that's been contracted by a
generic product manufacturer, to promote generic products in the minds
of consumers. We don't know exactly what sort of generic product class
is being promoted, and that's probably intentional (it would give away
too much information if a specific product class was identified in these
spams).

I would think that we're looking at the generic pharmaceutical market as
the target for these posts, given that expenditure for drugs is
increasing, the population is aging and drug purchases are growing, and
drug manufacturers (brand name and generic) are always spending money
promoting their products.

I believe we are looking at the results of a marketing or PR firm that's
been hired to promote generic drugs as an alternative to brand-name
alternatives, and one area of their focus is to spam usenet with these
postings.

Doug Miller wrote:

I didn't see it, and never would have, if you hadn't reposted it.

Are you saying that news.eternal-september.org (formerly motzarella?)
has an effective spam filter in place? Something other than cleanfeed
and noceum?

New Guy wrote
Bill wrote

Does anyone have any theory as to who is
responsible for these anti-brand-name postings?

Some people are "giving type" people and like to share.

If that's true in this case, then should there be more postings
from the same author, on different topics perhaps?

Not necessarily, it may be the only area he is obsessed about.

A google groups search for posts by the author "
shows posts with these subjects:

- Save Money
- Not Rocket Science

In these newsgroups:

- uk.people.consumers
- misc.kids.consumers
- misc.kids.health
- misc.consumer
- misc.consumer.house
- misc.consumers
- misc.consumers.home
- misc.consumers.house
- alt.consumer
- alt.consumer.free-stuff
- alt.consumers
- alt.consumers.experiences
- aus.consumers
- alt.pharm.indust
- alt.pharmacy.health.informatics
- alt.make.money
- americast.usa-today.money
- americast.usa-today.news
- americast.ushead.money
- alt.alternative.health
- soc.senior.health+fitness
- soc.senior.issues
- net.medicine.public-health.general
- net.medicine.public-health.drugs
- net.medicine.research.general
- net.medicine.support.general

They're mostly pretty appropriate for the sort of posts he has been doing.

In not one of those cases, where the post spawned a conversational thread,
did "Dr. Smith" return to the thread to participate in the conversation.

His choice.

Here we see the same message posted 5 times to alt.health within the
span of a few minutes:

http://tinyurl.com/ybey4o9

That may be due to a different problem, it may have appeared
that the post didnt get out, so he reposted it a few times.

That does happen occassionally even with the sort of post you do approve of.

These posts have also been made by someone
using the handle "Ziggy" to these newsgroups:

- microsoft.public.biztalk.general
- microsoft.public.biztalk.jumpstart
- microsoft.public.biztalk.newuser
- microsoft.public.biztalk.server
- microsoft.public.biztalk.xsharp
- microsoft.public.bookshelf
- microsoft.public.br.applicationcenter
- microsoft.public.br.certificacoes
- microsoft.public.br.design.gallery
- alt.fan.states.new-york
- alt.fan.states.north-carolina
- alt.fan.states.north-dakota
- alt.fan.states.ohio
- alt.fan.states.oklahoma
- alt.fan.states.oregon
- alt.fan.states.pennslvania
- alt.fan.states.rhode-island
- alt.fan.states.south-carolina
- alt.fan.states.south-dakota
- alt.fan.states.tennessee
- alt.fan.states.texas
- alt.fan.states.utah
- alt.fan.states.vermont
- alt.fan.states.virginia
- alt.fan.states.washington
- alt.fan.states.west-virginia
- cmi.consumer
- free.uk.scotland.help-consumers
- can.consumers
- rec.photo.35mm
- rec.music.trumpet
- rec.music.makers.piano
- rec.games.chess
- comp.music.midi
- alt.tv.tech.hdtv
- alt.tv.tech
- alt.music.home-studio

And probably hundreds if not thousands of other newsgroups.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

If this doesn't constitute usenet spamming, then nothing does.

You dont know that that is the same individual as the original you howled about.

Some people are "more intelligent" than others and teach others what they know.

This is not teaching. This is spamming.

You dont get to rule on that any time soon.

For example these people might see others with financial
difficulties spending their money foolishly. And they are
simply pointing out ways to better manage money. And
thus rectify the financial difficulties in question.

Do you believe it is proper to post messages
like this to usenet, to hundreds or more groups?

It can be, depending on what sort of material is in the post.

If you believe that, then there is nothing that can't be justified when it
comes to mass usenet posting. Then nothing can really be classified
as abuse or spam when it comes to usenet according to that logic.

Yes, you get to like or lump the fact that not all have the same opinion you do.

Eventually even you might get enough of a clue to manage
to grasp that usenet is about as close to complete anarchy
as any of us are likely to ever get involved in personally.

Some of us quite like that and use news servers that filter real spam
and accept the fact that it certainly does attract some real loons as well.

Timothy McViegh who got executed for the Oklahoma atrocity did show up at one time.

I believe these posts are some sort of professionally orchestrated effort,

More fool you. Thats mindlessly silly. So few even know what usenet is, let
alone read it much even if they do know what it is, that no one would bother.

There are hordes more viable places to do that than usenet.

perhaps by a marketing company that's been contracted by a generic
product manufacturer, to promote generic products in the minds of consumers.

There's hordes more viable places to do that, like in the mass media.

We don't know exactly what sort of generic product class is being promoted,

You dont know that ANY generic product class is being 'promoted'

and that's probably intentional (it would give away too much information
if a specific product class was identified in these spams).

Utterly mindless silly conspiracy theory.

I would think that we're looking at the generic
pharmaceutical market as the target for these posts,

Very bloody unlikely given the content of the post you reposted in full.

given that expenditure for drugs is increasing, the population is aging
and drug purchases are growing, and drug manufacturers (brand
name and generic) are always spending money promoting their products.

And they have enough of a clue to do that where VASTLY more will see that than usenet.

I believe we are looking at the results of a marketing or PR firm
that's been hired to promote generic drugs as an alternative to
brand-name alternatives, and one area of their focus is to spam
usenet with these postings.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you are just as
much of a mindless loon as the poster you originally howled about.

Scott in SoCal wrote:

I didn't see it, and never would have, if you hadn't reposted it.

Are you saying that news.eternal-september.org (formerly
motzarella?) has an effective spam filter in place? Something
other than cleanfeed and noceum?

Apparently so, as I didn't see it either until you quoted it.

Well, there you go.

For those that claim that post isin't spam, then maybe they can explain
why it was filtered on the (strangely-named) news.eternal-september.org
public-access server.

In New Guy wrote:

the (strangely-named) news.eternal-september.org

Not strange at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

New Guy wrote
Scott in SoCal wrote

I didn't see it, and never would have, if you hadn't reposted it.

Are you saying that news.eternal-september.org (formerly
motzarella?) has an effective spam filter in place?
Something other than cleanfeed and noceum?

Apparently so, as I didn't see it either until you quoted it.

Well, there you go.

For those that claim that post isin't spam, then maybe they
can explain why it was filtered on the (strangely-named)
news.eternal-september.org public-access server.

No anti spam mechanism can ever be perfect. It clearly just treats it as
spam purely because of the repetition, not because of the content, stupid.

Bet it also treats the other common non spam, faqs and charter reposts, as spam too.

And even you admitted that those arent spam.

You're face down in the mud, again.

In article , New Guy wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I didn't see it, and never would have, if you hadn't reposted it.

Are you saying that news.eternal-september.org (formerly motzarella?)
has an effective spam filter in place? Something other than cleanfeed
and noceum?

Obviously.

In article , New Guy wrote:
Scott in SoCal wrote:

I didn't see it, and never would have, if you hadn't reposted it.

Are you saying that news.eternal-september.org (formerly
motzarella?) has an effective spam filter in place? Something
other than cleanfeed and noceum?

Apparently so, as I didn't see it either until you quoted it.

Well, there you go.

For those that claim that post isin't spam,

I don't think anyone is claiming that. I'm just wondering what motive you had
in reposting it.

then maybe they can explain
why it was filtered on the (strangely-named) news.eternal-september.org
public-access server.

Because it's spam. Duh.

In article ,
says...

Last time on misc.consumers, Bert Hyman said:

In New Guy wrote:

the (strangely-named) news.eternal-september.org

Not strange at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September


So when motzarella.org chose its new name, what message was it trying
to send? Is it marketing itself a gateway for clueless USENET newbies?


My initial interpretation was the opposite. I had figured that
it was about the American school break ending. So that,
teenagers have to go back to class, and have less time to sit at
home, trolling Usenet.

OTOH, the Wikipedia article sounds reasonable, so maybe the name
is just about inviting lots and lots of new users. My own use of
the service started because my regular ISP dropped Usenet some
time ago, and I am in an area with limited options. Plus, I
don't feel any great need for binary groups that are only listed
on paid feeds.


--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum