Re: Oracle Report Generator - SPAMMERS needed

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".

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

[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...

>>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 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.

> Well, let's just all start doing that! Maybe if we did, Daniel
> wouldn't feel so impelled to take the gauntlet himself.

My point is, why should he feel compelled in the first place?

> Your needs, ok, the group's needs, something else.

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).

> 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.

> 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.

>It winds up nullifying a whole lot of
> effort by a lot of people, who eventually give up. For that matter,
> how do we know Daniel even posted the "SPAMMERS needed" response?

Because, unfortunately, he has a track record of such things, and he would have denied it by now if it hadn't been him.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed May 05 2004 - 16:40:36 CDT