If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
Jeez, if I wanted to scan eBay I wouldn't be here, you know?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
I'm not sure but I think it may even be a violation of the
newsgroup charter but it happens all the time. They should at minimum post it as FA rather than FS then my email program blocks the posts. I think it may also violate the ebay terms of use but not so sure about that. darkroommike Tom M wrote: Jeez, if I wanted to scan eBay I wouldn't be here, you know? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:19:06 -0600, darkroommike
wrote: I'm not sure but I think it may even be a violation of the newsgroup charter but it happens all the time. Hardly. They are for sale, just through an intermediary service (eBay). They should at minimum post it as FA rather than FS... That would be nice, as a courtesy. ... I think it may also violate the ebay terms of use but not so sure about that. It doesn't. -- Larry |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
In article , pltrgyst
wrote: On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 11:19:06 -0600, darkroommike wrote: I'm not sure but I think it may even be a violation of the newsgroup charter but it happens all the time. Hardly. They are for sale, just through an intermediary service (eBay). The charter forbids posting of auction notices, in case you haven't read it thoroughly (if at all): Rec.photo.marketplace.* will contain all "for sale" and "wanted" postings. These posting will be restricted to the private sale of personally owned and used equipment. These newsgroups specifically do *not* permit commercial advertising, postings by dealers selling or soliciting equipment, postings from internet auction sites, or postings by amateurs regularly dealing in used equipment principally or incidentally for purposes of financial gain. They are intended as forums in which photographers can sell, trade or request equipment in connection with their individual photographic interests. They should at minimum post it as FA rather than FS... That would be nice, as a courtesy. ... I think it may also violate the ebay terms of use but not so sure about that. It doesn't. -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:48:19 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
The charter forbids posting of auction notices, in case you haven't read it thoroughly (if at all): Rec.photo.marketplace.* will contain all "for sale" and "wanted" postings. These posting will be restricted to the private sale of personally owned and used equipment. These newsgroups specifically do *not* permit commercial advertising, postings by dealers selling or soliciting equipment, postings from internet auction sites, or postings by amateurs regularly dealing in used equipment principally or incidentally for purposes of financial gain. They are intended as forums in which photographers can sell, trade or request equipment in connection with their individual photographic interests. No, it doesn't. Better read the above again, this time for understanding. A posting _by an individual_ providing a link to an auction site is not a posting _from an Internet auction site_. -- Larry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
In article , pltrgyst
wrote: On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:48:19 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote: The charter forbids posting of auction notices, in case you haven't read it thoroughly (if at all): Rec.photo.marketplace.* will contain all "for sale" and "wanted" postings. These posting will be restricted to the private sale of personally owned and used equipment. These newsgroups specifically do *not* permit commercial advertising, postings by dealers selling or soliciting equipment, postings from internet auction sites, or postings by amateurs regularly dealing in used equipment principally or incidentally for purposes of financial gain. They are intended as forums in which photographers can sell, trade or request equipment in connection with their individual photographic interests. No, it doesn't. Better read the above again, this time for understanding. A posting _by an individual_ providing a link to an auction site is not a posting _from an Internet auction site_. Oh, brother. Talk about intentionally mis-interpreting to support your own views (or uninformed statements) because of minor wording. You really think that they meant that the auction site itself had to post the message, when no auction site anywhere does so itself? Try going back and reviewing the RFC's and other input during the discussion of the creation of these groups (& their charters) if you really want to know thier intent. Sheesh. -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:02:52 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote:
A posting _by an individual_ providing a link to an auction site is not a posting _from an Internet auction site_. Oh, brother. Talk about intentionally mis-interpreting to support your own views (or uninformed statements) because of minor wording. You really think that they meant that the auction site itself had to post the message, when no auction site anywhere does so itself? I don't care what they meant -- that's what they said. Any neutral party reading the RFC would logically conclude that they didn't want the group to end up as en echo for some eBay category. Try going back and reviewing the RFC's and other input during the discussion of the creation of these groups (& their charters) if you really want to know thier intent. We're not talking about the founding fathers here. There's no interpratation involved at all on my part. I simply believe in the English language. If the person who wrote the final RFC screwed up, he should have fixed it long ago. -- Larry |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody sell anything HERE, Or are they all eBay Diverters?
In article , pltrgyst
wrote: On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:02:52 -0800, Ken Lucke wrote: A posting _by an individual_ providing a link to an auction site is not a posting _from an Internet auction site_. Oh, brother. Talk about intentionally mis-interpreting to support your own views (or uninformed statements) because of minor wording. You really think that they meant that the auction site itself had to post the message, when no auction site anywhere does so itself? I don't care what they meant -- that's what they said. I see. Semantics. That will always win an arguement. eBay (nor any of the other auciton sites) has never posted articles to usenet or email (and WILL toss a user for spamming, and occasionally will do so for misusing newsgroups for their auction ads, but that takes getting the right abuse droid who understands the relationship between the AUPs of eBay and the charters of usenet, which is rare). The auction sites aren't like the headhunters in the jobs.* newsgroups with their [sometimes] 10's of thousands of articles [each] a day, repeated endlessly, blasting those groups out of usefulness. They NEVER post articles - only their users sometimes (wrongly) do. Do you realize what usenet would look like if they DID? Hundreds of thousands of articles everywhere about eBay and other sites' auctions? Have you seen that anywhere on usenet? Ever? Didn't think so. Why would the charters for these groups have been written to exclude a situation which is not, has not, and most probably never will be a problem? Any neutral party reading the RFC would logically conclude that they didn't want the group to end up as en echo for some eBay category. You say "any logical neutral party would"... So you know how a neutral party would react, do you? I seriously doubt it, as you are arguing on completely a biased opinion of your own, and could not possibly comprehend what a "neutral" would or would not conclude. For that matter (before you come back at me with it), so am I. Neither of us is neutral, and neither can therefore conclude what a neutral would think. Try going back and reviewing the RFC's and other input during the discussion of the creation of these groups (& their charters) if you really want to know thier intent. We're not talking about the founding fathers here. There's no interpratation involved at all on my part. I simply believe in the English language. Ah, I'm /so/ glad you've NEVER been misunderstood, or misunderstood others, then, or been wrong about the intent of someone else, because you take the /letter/ of everything anyone says as absolute, carven in stone, gospel, and without flaw. Congratulations. If the person who wrote the final RFC screwed up, he should have fixed it long ago. Oh, so you know how easy it is to fix (change) a charter then, once it's been approved, do you? You have to go through the WHOLE gamut of RFC, votes, etc., to change ONE word (in this case, changing the word "from" to the word "for" would be all that would be required to make it read the way it was intended) in a charter. And in this case, where it's merely a matter of minor semantical interpretation of one word for a situation that is not all that major (while prohibited, there are only a few here who abuse it), no one is going to be prepared to go through the whole rigamarole, but rather rely on the common sense of people reading the charter. You still didn't go back and research the RFCs and comments and discussions, did you? Never mind answering, because the answer is clear. The RFC's /intent/ is to prohibit advertisements for auction ads (et. al.) in these groups, whether that's /your/ interpretation of the exact wording or not. I'm well aware that you will never be convinced of that, so I will now stop trying, as it's a wasted effort. You can believe what you want as to the letter of the one word, and can continue to argue semantics about "from" vs "for" 'til the cows come home for alll I care. I know the actual intent of the charter, and I've wasted too much time on this stupid argument already. This thread is now consigned to my bitbucket. -- You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
used equipment - ebay or sell to b&h? | peter | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 13 | December 21st 05 06:11 PM |
[VENDO/SELL] Ebay SPAM | Tony Spadaro | APS Photographic Equipment | 0 | March 26th 04 11:08 PM |
[VENDO/SELL] Ebay SPAM | Tony Spadaro | Large Format Photography Equipment | 0 | March 26th 04 11:08 PM |
[VENDO/SELL] Ebay SPAM | Tony Spadaro | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 0 | March 26th 04 11:08 PM |