Post by pltrgystPost by Ken LuckePost by pltrgystA 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?
Post by pltrgystAny 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.
Post by pltrgystPost by Ken LuckeTry 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.
Post by pltrgystIf 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