On Sat, 26 May 2007 07:59:22 -0700, Jon Harrop <jo*@ffconsultancy.com>
wrote:
>>I recognise your goal and I believe it is futile. Regardless, I find
your ideals uninteresting.
You find them interesting enough to continue the discussion.
About something else.
Sure doesn't look that way to me. This discussion is entirely about "my
ideals".
[...]
Spelling, grammar, content, lack of knowledge about the world around
them.
All consistent with that of a child.
In other words, you have no actual reason to believe they are children.
It simply helps you dismiss their comments to think of them that way.
Well, I'm sure that's great for your ego, but frankly it's a pretty
ignorant way to go about reading posts.
[...]
Robert could have posted something completely different and these people
would still have gotten upset. Hence my advice to ignore the freeloaders.
What a completely absurd claim. This is all about the advertisement
Robert posted. It is ridiculous to claim that had he posted something
different, "these people would still have gotten upset". Lots of people
post lots of different things here, and nary a peep out of "these people".
Clearly, it has everything to do with *what* Robert posted, rather than
simply that he *did* post.
>Actually, we're talking about a single post, and it certainly is not
without its own consequences, both short-term and long-term.
I really think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.
If that's so, why do you bother to continue the discussion? I know why
*I* am still here. I disagree that it's "a mole hill". But if you
actually believe it's "a mole hill", what in the world would compell you
to waste so much time on it?
We've covered this: I don't believe your plague of off-topic posts will
deter spammers.
"Plague"? I made one post. In what bizarre world is that a "plague"?
And why do you *continue* to insist on using invectives and insults, even
as you complain so loudly about others insulting you?
I believe you are only making things worse. I can
understand why people spam. I do not understand why people respond in the
way you have.
Because we don't want spam. Because some spammers (though clearly not
you) will actually take the hint and go post their advertising somewhere
more appropriate. It *does* work.
I thought that if I pointed out how you were damaging your own cause that
you might stop. I can see now that I was wrong. Still, at least I
tried...
How am I damaging my own cause? Do you really believe that by posting my
reply to Robert, I have somehow encouraged *more* spam? Because that's
the only way that my post could be "damaging my own cause".
There is no point in putting on a pretend judge outfit and waving a FAQ
at
him.
Well then, good thing I didn't do that.
>Actually, Robert's first and last communication to us was to point us to
the marketplace where his book is sold, urging us to buy it. Unless the
stranger to which you refer did the same, your situation is not
analogous.
He told me who was publishing it.
I'll take that as a "no", that the situation was in fact not analogous.
Enough with the spitting already.
Again with the spitting? Honestly...are you able to have a discussion
without throwing insults around? Is that why you are so sensitive to
them? You can't help making them yourself?
For someone who is so ready to characterize others as "children", you have
a very immature way about you yourself. Frankly, I have not seen anyone
else in this newsgroup make so many ad hominem attacks. You are in a
class by yourself, at least in this community.
If you consider my replying and saying "congratulations" as a wholly
inappropriate response, yes.
Well, it turns out that you lied about the situation being in any way like
Robert's attempt to sell his book here, so really it doesn't matter what
you response to the guy was.
>Spam exists because it *is* a cost-effective advertising medium.
Nonsense. Spam exists because spammers believe it is a cost-effective
advertising medium. Even if nobody ever responded to bulk e-mail,
spammers
would still do it just in case.
That is, again, baloney. Spammers don't "believe it is a cost-effective
advertising medium". They KNOW it is. They can send out 100,000 email
messages, at practically no cost to them, and turn that into 4000 sales
(see the recent Pew report on US email users and their response to spam,
indicating a 4% response rate to spam).
Spammers would not waste their time if it didn't make them money. There'd
be no point in it.
He was older than Robert "so the situation is not analogous".
So you agree that the situation is not analogous. Why did you bother to
bring it up then?
[...]
I see any response to my adverts as a good response. If you respond by
starting some kind of bizarre pissing contest whilst mumbling about
turnips, then I will see that as a positive response.
Then why are you so upset about it? For someone who sees this thread as
being a positive response, you sure seem to have a strong objection to it
happening.
Swamping public forums in off-topic posts in an attempt to publically
humiliate someone into not writing off-topic posts does not seem like a
mature course of action to me.
Well, thankfully that's not what happened.
[...]
I'm saying that I understand why people spam (and I can see when people
do
it badly) but I do not understand why you continue to do more damage by
publically condemning spamming all the frikkin time.
"All the frikkin time"? I posted a single message. You have a
surprisingly low threshold for something to qualify as "all the frikkin
time".
My efforts in this thread are really two fold:
Firstly, I am trying to understand why people respond in the way they do.
That's been answered in sufficient detail. If you don't understand by
now, you don't have the capacity to.
Secondly, I am trying to disuade you from writing lots of off-topic posts
complaining about off-topic posting.
This goal is clearly false. It is simple for you to get me to stop
"writing lots of off-topic posts complaining about off-topic posting".
Just stop writing posts to which I may reply. I see this thread as a
productive use of my time...I wouldn't bother with it otherwise. But you
cannot legitimately claim it's not a thread that should be here, and yet
continue to participate in it. Such a claim in that context is
hypocritical.
However, I am failing.
On the first goal, I cannot help you. You seem beyond help. On the
second, you can achieve easily enough, once you decide to actually make it
your goal. Obviously, so far all you've done is *claim* it as a goal,
even while you clearly don't really desire it.
Pete
