Re: Oracle Report Generator - SPAMMERS needed

As promised the rest of my replies will be in a single group. I Mr. Rogers is interested he will have to visit c.d.o.misc

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40995f4b$0$442$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> Joel Garry wrote:
>
> > "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40981add$0$4548$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> >
> [snip]
>
> >>Sure, there is a charter. That establishes principles, and that's all
> >>well and good. But how that charter is enforced ("policed" if you will)
> >>is not a matter for an individual to determine.
> >
> >
> > As things are, it is such a matter. Then other individuals judge
> > that. Or not.
>
> Well then: we're just playing with words. Because the scenario you
> describe is where anyone is free to post anything, and individuals have
> a right to have (and express) an opinion about such posts. Which means
> the commercial posts are fine. Daniel's complaints about them are fine.
> My complaints about Daniel's complaints are fine. "As things are".

He can be taught! A moderated group has a single point of control, which is both its strength and its weakness. An open newsgroup such as this must be "self policing". Then the question is who is the "self"? Well, it's not any one person, so therefore it is everyone.

>
> We don't get very far beyond stating the obvious in that case.

I cannot read your mind any better than I can read Daniel's. Who holds what opinions is anything but obvious.

>
> [snip]
>
> >>Can we agree, perhaps, that "stomping" is counter-productive?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes. Well, maybe. No wait, spammers must be stomped!
>
> And there was me hoping! The problem remains, then, the initial one of :
> define 'spam', which requires a personal opinion, which...

is why we are having this discussion.

Daniel has taken the position that off topic posts should be labeled as discusting, rude, obnoxious, and worse. The one word that best sums up that view, in the current popular culture, seems to be SPAM. There may be other labels you might prefer, but that one seems to get the attention of the offenders.

>
> >>If I thought Daniel's telling off of the original poster was going to
> >>have any effect whatsoever on the chances of subsequent posters with
> >>different products making similar sort of posts; or if I though cdo* was
> >>in danger of drowning under a flood of commerical spam, my views might
> >>be different. But it won't, and we aren't, so they're not. :-)
> >
> >
> > But it does, and we could.
>
> How do you know it does? Judging by the non-spam posts from people who
> could have read a solution to their query posted just a day or so
> earlier, if only they had bothered to check Google, I doubt it does very
> much.

perhaps that's why we don't answer too many of those FAQ posts in .misc
(how often does c.d.o.tools post relies like RTMF or "do your own homework"?)

>
> > Perhaps it doesn't look that way because
> > the general spammer who actually follows what happens (ie, those with
> > a commercial Oracle product as opposed to, say, link farming) will
> > slink away without a public apology. And we just don't know how many
> > actually google and say "whoa, better not spam there!"
>
> Precisely my point. My view would be that the number is a nice round
> one. Very round.

Your evidence?

In a recent similar thread the original poster: 1 initially ignored Daiel's reply
2 but scanned some of the follow discussion 3 concluded he was off topic and presented a sincere apology

So the labelling and followups DO have an effect. []
> The entire discussion has been about how you, Daniel or anybody can
> legitimately determine "the group's needs". Particularly when one of the
> group at least (and more besides judging by my email) doesn't agree with
> you (or Daniel etc etc).

Having this discussion is PRECISELY how. And since I have made the point that EACH group must determine it's own needs and guidelines, I have kept this reply only in c.d.o.misc group. The c.d.o.tools group is perfectly free to set different guides.
>
> > Basically, I've found that emailing for off-topic posts gets a reply
> > like "Who made YOU King Of The Net?" Unless, he's already gotten
> > multiple emails, where they either get much more defensive or admit
> > they didn't know - the classic gang-FAQ responses. Being able to
> > point to public humilation of others making the same mistake leads
> > more quickly to such an admission.
>
> Well, in this case it made the original poster turn rather more
> obstreperous than he would have done, I think, if the approach had been
> made privately. Some you win, some you lose: but if they're going to
> reply to an email "Who made you King of the Net?", I don't see doing it
> publicly is going to make any difference... and, as I say, this is
> precisely a case in point.

I mentioned one case where the opposite result happened.

This case was more closely SPAM:
he posted to ALL 4 oracle group - demonstrating his knowledge of the existance of the .marketplace group.
he tried to defend himself saying .tools has too much junk postings for him to post there and be associated with such trash - but he posted there anyway!

the manner in which he has conducted himself in front of potential customers shows to me his distain. I doubt his report tool is so much better than others that ignoring his will bring harm to any clients of mine.
>
> > And of course, there is no strong identity checking, some email
> > addresses are just plain bogus.
>
> Yet Daniel (amongst others) only chooses to have a go -in public- at
> those spammers (by his definition) which have actually got legitimate
> email addresses. He never goes for those 'Me and My Sister' people. Why
> is that, do you think? Probably because it is pointless to do so. Yet
> the argument 'let's go for them in public because their email address
> might be bogus' is being applied in a most lop-sided manner in that
> case, is it not? Some might say that only the soft targets are being
> gone for.

ONE: maybe Daniel's news feed has somewhat better filtering (he cannot reply to posts he never sees) so maybe it's not so lopsided as you migh think.

TWO: the goal is to instruct. Labelling oracle posts that are off topic will have a direct chance of instructing at least the original poster.

The choice is between a readership of
 zero or more for replying to the 'Me and My Sister' posts versus
 one or more for replying to the offtopic but oracle related posts. []

Enjoy.
  ED Received on Thu May 06 2004 - 15:33:16 CDT