:::Jerry:::: wrote:
"Phil Addison" wrote
Think about the analogy between telephone exchanges and nntp
servers.


Oh, right, so telephone exchanges store the conversations that pass
through them and then pass those self same conversations onto any
telephone exchange that asks for a feed from them - I think not!

I don't think he understands - flogging a dead horse
here, I reckon.

In article , Owain
wrote:
Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website,
they would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

Perhaps, though you might well do it to improve your own name
recognition. You can argue that Avenue are exploiting the members of
this group, but equally they may well be bringing its existence to
people who previously didn't know about it.

The other user I quoted, the Laminate Flooring forum, is also using
this group: if you look at the top of the page they carry Google ads
and get paid by Google for doing so. People only go to that page
because of what we have written.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Tony Bryer wrote:
The other user I quoted, the Laminate Flooring forum, is also using
this group: if you look at the top of the page they carry Google ads
and get paid by Google for doing so. People only go to that page
because of what we have written.

Burn them!

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:25:00 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:59 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to publish
a
collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much
wider
public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group uk.d-i-y.
Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to see
him
through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)


But *every* NNTP server is doing the self same thing, with the
knowledge of the contributor! No doubt that a silkily spoken
lawyer
could convince a punter that they could make a case, heck that
happens in just about each and every court case, but that doesn't
mean they will win and that costs could well be awarded against
the
complainant...

Think about the analogy between telephone exchanges and nntp
servers.


Oh, right, so telephone exchanges store the conversations that pass
through them and then pass those self same conversations onto any
telephone exchange that asks for a feed from them - I think not!

So the recent news items in the media on world-wide discussions about
how long (not if) to store telephone conversions totally escaped your
notice. The term Echelon won't mean much to you either.

However, you do seem to have a single-minded grasp of the four letters
nntp, but do you actually know what they stand for? (no cheating now,
tell us without googling for it).

Phil

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:19:59 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Owain
wrote:

:::Jerry:::: wrote:
As far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and
will never be any financial loss.

Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website, they
would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

Perhaps the writers and maintainers of the FAQs, in particular, should
think about copyright statements on the FAQs, possibly releasing them
under something like creative commons licences?

http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/index.html#copyright and on the bottom of
every page.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

In article ,
John Schmitt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:07:04 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

Printed and published are not the same.

Correct, but published does not necessarily imply to the general public.

Have you read the Oxford English Dictionary recently?

Yes. It seems to be in broad agreement with most of it's peers. Perhaps
you need the advanced version, not the pocket one.

So point out which definition of the word 'publish' includes the concept of
not being public or open. It certainly doesn't appear in the (non-pocket)
2-volume, Shorter OED. Have you managed to find an arch. or sl. definition in
the full OED?

And Chambers agrees that 'publish' requires that it be made public.

NB Why choose to argue the matter with a publisher? ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:00:48 +0100, in uk.d-i-y Chris Bacon
wrote:

Tony Bryer wrote:
The other user I quoted, the Laminate Flooring forum, is also using
this group: if you look at the top of the page they carry Google ads
and get paid by Google for doing so. People only go to that page
because of what we have written.

Burn them!

Turncoat

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

In article ,
Rob Morley wrote:
In article ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story (for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...

They publish it in a newsgroup - as long as it stays in that newsgroup
it hasn't been republished, regardless of which server it is made
available from. Or are you going to say that bookshops republish books
because they have different copies in different places?

I understand that the company were doing more than taking the whole newsgroup
and making it available to the general public.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 08:59:50 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

snip

The fact is, they are NOT breaking copyright (as they
acknowledge
copyright), they are just accessing a PUBLIC news feed - just
as
any
ISP, Google, or any 'Usenet server' does and what's more the
first
and last often charge people...

Oh I see. It's OK to make and sell DVD copies of a film so long
as
you
acknowledge that its a bootleg?? Do try to keep up with the
explanations that have been given here, and read the links I
gave.


WTF are you whittering on about!

You said it's OK to copy something as long as you acknowledge the
copyright holder - this is nonsense, of course.

Well if people must take things out of context to further there non
argument....

We are talking about Usenet, the fact is, Usenet works by copying
other people 'works' around the world.

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 13:25:00 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:28:59 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Dear me. So you haven't met a lawyer? ;-)

"M'lud, my client had full expectation of being able to
publish
a
collection
of his thoughts until XYZ Ltd made them available to a much
wider
public than
those few souls who read the specialist news group
uk.d-i-y.
Through their
turpitude he now has no means of obtaining the pension to
see
him
through the
remaining winters of his later years."

pass the hanky ;-)


But *every* NNTP server is doing the self same thing, with
the
knowledge of the contributor! No doubt that a silkily spoken
lawyer
could convince a punter that they could make a case, heck
that
happens in just about each and every court case, but that
doesn't
mean they will win and that costs could well be awarded
against
the
complainant...

Think about the analogy between telephone exchanges and nntp
servers.


Oh, right, so telephone exchanges store the conversations that
pass
through them and then pass those self same conversations onto any
telephone exchange that asks for a feed from them - I think not!

So the recent news items in the media on world-wide discussions
about
how long (not if) to store telephone conversions totally escaped
your
notice. The term Echelon won't mean much to you either.

They are not proposing to store the conversations, just the time of
contact, party ID's and call duration.


However, you do seem to have a single-minded grasp of the four
letters
nntp, but do you actually know what they stand for? (no cheating
now,
tell us without googling for it).


FOAD moron.

"Owain" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
As far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and
will never be any financial loss.

Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website, they
would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

HOW, YOU NEVER CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story (for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...

They publish it in a newsgroup - as long as it stays in that
newsgroup
it hasn't been republished, regardless of which server it is made
available from. Or are you going to say that bookshops republish
books
because they have different copies in different places?

So best you shut down all the NNTP to WEB interfaces like Google...

I've never known such a inward looking bunch of morons. :~(

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in
message ...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:14:18 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"

wrote:


| All Avenue Supplies are doing is taking that public news feed and
| placing it within a HTML web page - just as Google etc. do.

But I post from Google groups on occasion. Last Saturday was the
last
time.


The last time you used something that you now suggest should not be
allowed or the last time you will ever use such a web interface?....

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Tony Bryer wrote:
The other user I quoted, the Laminate Flooring forum, is also
using
this group: if you look at the top of the page they carry Google
ads
and get paid by Google for doing so. People only go to that page
because of what we have written.

Burn them!

This thread is really nothing but an ignorant witch hunt /
lynching....

Phil Addison wrote:
":::Jerry::::" wrote:

Oh, right, so telephone exchanges store the conversations that pass
through them and then pass those self same conversations onto any
telephone exchange that asks for a feed from them - I think not!


So the recent news items in the media on world-wide discussions about
how long (not if) to store telephone conversions totally escaped your
notice. The term Echelon won't mean much to you either.

Oh, do they do that right now, then?

In article ws.net,
LID says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story (for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...

They publish it in a newsgroup - as long as it stays in that
newsgroup
it hasn't been republished, regardless of which server it is made
available from. Or are you going to say that bookshops republish
books
because they have different copies in different places?

So best you shut down all the NNTP to WEB interfaces like Google...

Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and puts them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without consent.

In article ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Owain" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
As far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and
will never be any financial loss.

Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website, they
would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

HOW, YOU NEVER CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I might be happy to provide a photograph free for a charity magazine yet
choose to charge if the Daily Mirror wants it.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:

"Owain" wrote in message
...
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
As far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and
will never be any financial loss.

Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website,
they
would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

HOW, YOU NEVER CHARGED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I might be happy to provide a photograph free for a charity
magazine yet
choose to charge if the Daily Mirror wants it.


We are talking about Usenet contributions, not those to your rag...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Are you seriously suggesting that is someone writes a story
(for
example) and then posts it to a Usenet group they could
legally
prevent it being 're-published' by other servers?...

They publish it in a newsgroup - as long as it stays in that
newsgroup
it hasn't been republished, regardless of which server it is
made
available from. Or are you going to say that bookshops
republish
books
because they have different copies in different places?

So best you shut down all the NNTP to WEB interfaces like
Google...

Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without consent.


You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:55:57 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...

Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without consent.


You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Grunff explained yesterday why we are happy to let Google archive our
posts.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

In article ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative
work.

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:55:57 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...

Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.


You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Grunff explained yesterday why we are happy to let Google archive
our
posts.


What utter clap trap.

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective
of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative
work.

Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend
on the search string used.

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
I might be happy to provide a photograph free for a charity
magazine yet
choose to charge if the Daily Mirror wants it.

We are talking about Usenet contributions, not those to your
rag...

I might choose to provide a short article free on a news group yet
charge if
the Daily Mirror wants to print it. What's the difference?
Certainly no one
can assume that I have no rights in the matter - and one of the
rights that I
retain is the right to charge for the use of my material. Even if I
have
chosen to give it free elsewhere.


You know that the nntp source is open, if you don't like that then
don't post messages to it. OTOH, if you really do think you have a
case I suggest you try and close Google down, they are doing what the
original site in question did on a much grander scale - and most
certainty making money out of their targeted adverts.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:00:24 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:55:57 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:

"Rob Morley" wrote in message
t...

Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.


You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Grunff explained yesterday why we are happy to let Google archive
our
posts.


What utter clap trap.

Nice argument, it almost convinced me. Are you related to Dr Drivel?

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:04:30 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective
of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative
work.

Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend
on the search string used.

There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

Even if that goes over head, it was obvious to Avenue Supplies once
pointed out to them and they have discontinued it. To be on the safe
side they have discontinued their partial newsfeed as well.

I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you like in
reply.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
snip

Nice argument, it almost convinced me. Are you related to Dr
Drivel?


No, but I'm starting to think you might be.

"Phil Addison" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:04:30 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is
still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads
and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial
search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't
selective
of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a
derivative
work.

Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about
gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective
than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that
depend
on the search string used.

There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with
some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up
a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

No there is not, both are selectively copying, the whys and
wherefores of each web site would not make any difference to any
copyright infringement.


Even if that goes over head, it was obvious to Avenue Supplies once
pointed out to them and they have discontinued it. To be on the
safe
side they have discontinued their partial newsfeed as well.

I suspect they pulled the feed due to all the "Avenue Supplies are
crap" type subject lines and thread content, nothing to do with the
rights or wrong of the feed.


I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you
like in
reply.


In other words, "I'm loosing the argument so I'll bow out before I
loose all my credibility"...

Phil Addison wrote:
":::Jerry::::" wrote:
"Phil Addison" wrote
Grunff explained yesterday why we are happy to let Google archive
our posts.

What utter clap trap.

Nice argument, it almost convinced me. Are you related to Dr Drivel?

Ditto, Phil, old bean. Great argument of yours, too. Are you related
to Dr. Drivel, or are you Dr. Drivel, incogneto?

Phil Addison wrote:
There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

What, so it's OK for some organisations do what you are objecting
to, as long as they only do it a bit? ROFL!


I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you like
in reply.

Ah, backing out already. If he's being rude, you continued it. You
make me laugh.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:39:00 +0100, ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


| You know that the nntp source is open, if you don't like that then
| don't post messages to it.

Please state the UK statute in which usenet is stated to be exempt from UK
Copyright Law.

--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

Phil Addison wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:04:30 +0100, in uk.d-i-y ":::Jerry::::"
wrote:


"Rob Morley" wrote in message
...
In article
ws.net,
LID says...
snip
Whether a newsgroup is accessed via NNTP or HTTP it is still a
newsgroup. If someone selects individual posts or threads and
puts
them
on a website they are creating a derivative work without
consent.

You mean like Google does when you use their commercial search
engine?...

Google Groups is an HTTP front end to Usenet - it isn't selective
of the
content of any particular group, so doesn't constitute a derivative
work.

Did you read what I said?
You are wrong in what you say above, or do you get answers about gas
installations when you search for answers about pitting up a
shelf?!...

If anything Google search is being a dammed sight more selective than
the site that started this thread and what's more, it's being a
dammed sight more commercial with it's targeted adverts that depend
on the search string used.

There is a huge difference between putting up ALL the posts with some
matched ads alongside as per google, and the opposite of putting up a
catalogue page of dozens of CH thermostats you have for sale with a
relevant ng post extracted from the feed and placed beneath them.

Even if that goes over head, it was obvious to Avenue Supplies once
pointed out to them and they have discontinued it. To be on the safe
side they have discontinued their partial newsfeed as well.

I won't be posting further on this so you can be as rude as you like in
reply.

Phil
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
The Google uk.d-i-y archive is at http://tinyurl.com/65kwq
e-mai1: editor (a t) diyfaq (stop) o r g (stop) uk = make obvious corrections




Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any way.

The News feed was closed not as an admission rather an attempt to
reduce the slander and witch-hunt that ensued specifically addressed at
Avenue Supplies.

We make every reasonable attempt to correct issues the community may
have with our site. We state that
http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/disclaimer.php.

Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?


For those wishing to see the pages in question (non cached). The
following URL will remain for a couple of days and is not a public or
indexed url http://www.avenuesupplies.co.uk/news2/news.php

On 27 Sep 2005 12:53:26 -0700, "robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk"
wrote:


| Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
| within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum.

I pointed out the problem via your contact us page.

| What
| gives?

Your actions were illegal.


--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
The London suicide bombers killed innocent commuters.
Animal rights terrorists and activists kill innocent patients.

prior to letting loose on a public forum.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:53:26 UTC, "robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT
uk" wrote:

Avenue Supplies at no time filtered news group posts. This is a
statement that has been used by Phil Addison throughout this thread
that is incorrect. There were a maximum of 8 products that were listed
above a news group thread related only to the subject of the thread
being viewed. The Thread was not manipulated or altered in any way.

So you were using people's posts to increase your profits? And you
wonder why you were slagged off?

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

In article . com,
robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk wrote:
Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

Nobody from the company appears to have bothered asking in the group if anyone
here minded being used in that way. What gives?

Whilst we might be pleased, even flattered, to be asked it's an insult to be
taken for granted. When people post to the group and do nothing but take ideas
and offer nothing in return we can deal with that ourselves and - if we feel
that it's a bit much - respond (or fail to respond) appropriately. That
frequently happens in newsgroups where kids ask questions in order to get
their homework answered for free.

But you're doing it underhand. That rankles. If we get the feeling that
posters to the group are getting a free ride (free homework) we reserve the
right to insert 'apprentice jokes' in our replies and tell them they will need
to go for a long stand. But you're doing it underhand - and you noticed the
way we dealt with that.

I don't know how the group will deal with it if you now ask permission to do
what you have already done. I do know that, unless you do approach it in that
way, future posts may well include rude comments about your company and its
products. If you think that's unfair then think how much it would cost to
commission the information that you display on your site.

Starting from scratch? Try this:

"We have been reading uk.d-i-y and think that many of the posts here offer
excellent advice. We run a company that sells diy goods and would like to give
the news group an airing on our site. If you agree to that then we'd be very
happy to offer uk.d-i-y readers a 20% discount on our goods."

Of course you'd have to be prepared for bolshie people to say "bog off" or
similar! ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk wrote:
Nobody bothered to contact us showing concern about anything addressed
within this thread prior to letting loose on a public forum. What
gives?

Verbal diarrhoea, bad manners, double standards, and hysteria. Most
unfortunate. I hope you do well with your business.

John Cartmell wrote:
If we get the feeling

Please do not use the inclusive "we".


Starting from scratch? Try this:

"We have been reading uk.d-i-y and think that many of the posts here offer
excellent advice. We run a company that sells diy goods and would like to give
the news group an airing on our site. If you agree to that then we'd be very
happy to offer uk.d-i-y readers a 20% discount on our goods."

What, like the "very-close-to-advertising" Direct Decorating
firm did a while back, that wasn't complained about? Perhaps
if robert AT avenuesupplies DOT co DOT uk contributes articles
saying which products would be suitable in reply to questions
than that'd be OK?


Of course you'd have to be prepared for bolshie people to say "bog off" or
similar! ;-)

I have no doubt.

I see that the claim that A.S. "filtered" the posts has been denied,
and that that denial has already been ignored or disregarded.

In article ,
Chris Bacon wrote:
John Cartmell wrote:
If we get the feeling

Please do not use the inclusive "we".

Why not? Read it again and see if there is anything that I've said that is
wrong. I haven't committed you (or we) to anything or assumed anything on your
behalf.


[Snip]

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In message , Owain
writes
:::Jerry:::: wrote:
As far as the contributor is concerned there hasn't been and
will never be any financial loss.

Of course there has been. If the knowledgeable people here were
commissioned to write an article for Avenue Supplies' website, they
would expect to be paid for it at normal commercial rates.

Perhaps the writers and maintainers of the FAQs, in particular, should
think about copyright statements on the FAQs, possibly releasing them
under something like creative commons licences?

And a written charter - do we have one?

I know there are guidelines in the faq but does that constitute a
charter ?


I've quoted it several times when writing emails to spammers, but I've
never seen one. I remember protracted discussions about it some years
ago, but don't remember if anything actually came of it

--
geoff