UKVoIPTalk.com

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5iju86F3qfnp0U1@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
> Henry Hooray <yri6tus02@sneakeLEAVETHISOUTmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>> My apologies. I would have thought it was obvious that I referred to
>> information provided as a seller, not requested as a buyer. Sorry.
>>[/color]
> Your actual words were: "If the poster potentially stands to benefit in
> *any* way . . . "
>
> Where does that say anything about selling - *or* buying for that matter?[/color]

You're absolutely correct, Roger. How silly of me - thinking that
advertising largely related to selling or benefits connected with promoting,
rather than asking for advice (and I'm sure pedantics can find much more to
about this, if they haven't got anything better to do). Next time I must
remember to spell this out in immense detail, because this kind of confusion
can apparently arise very easily indeed.

Over and out.

Henry.
[color=blue]
> --
> Cheers,
> Roger
> ______
> Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
> monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
> PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP![/color]

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Henry Hooray <yri6tus02@sneakeLEAVETHISOUTmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> You're absolutely correct, Roger. How silly of me - thinking that
> advertising largely related to selling or benefits connected with
> promoting, rather than asking for advice (and I'm sure pedantics can
> find much more to about this, if they haven't got anything better to
> do). Next time I must remember to spell this out in immense detail,
> because this kind of confusion can apparently arise very easily
> indeed.[/color]

Call it pedantic if you like - but it pales into insignificance compared
with the pedantry of those who invoke charters to accuse someone of
advertising simply because he/she asked whether it was acceptable to post a
link to an Ebay sale!

Surely the Thought Police have better things to do with their time?!
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5il4ntF3pfjlqU1@mid.individual.net

[snip]

: : Call it pedantic if you like - but it pales into
: : insignificance compared with the pedantry of those who
: : invoke charters to accuse someone of advertising simply
: : because he/she asked whether it was acceptable to post
: : a link to an Ebay sale!

I suggest you read my original reply to the OP again.

I merely pointed the OP to the charter and to eBay's rules both of which
state clearly it is not acceptable. How is that pedantry..?


Ivor

In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:5il4ntF3pfjlqU1@mid.individual.net
>
> [snip]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Call it pedantic if you like - but it pales into
>>> insignificance compared with the pedantry of those who
>>> invoke charters to accuse someone of advertising simply
>>> because he/she asked whether it was acceptable to post
>>> a link to an Ebay sale![/color][/color]
>
> I suggest you read my original reply to the OP again.
>
> I merely pointed the OP to the charter and to eBay's rules both of
> which state clearly it is not acceptable. How is that pedantry..?
>
>
> Ivor[/color]

I'm far from convinced that either of them *do* say that what the OP wanted
to do was unacceptable. Even if you *can* interpret them to say that, it's
using a sledge hammer to crack a nut if you invoke rules which are designed
to prevent blatent commercialism and apply them to someone who simply wants
to draw attention to a one-off private sale.

Far too many column inches have been wasted on a subject which is trivial,
and really doesn't matter in the overall scheme of things.
--
Cheers,
Roger
______
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!

"Roger Mills" <watt.tyler@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:5imjdoF3oscfoU1@mid.individual.net
: : In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
: : Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

: : : I suggest you read my original reply to the OP again.
: : :
: : : I merely pointed the OP to the charter and to eBay's
: : : rules both of which state clearly it is not
: : : acceptable. How is that pedantry..?
: :
: : I'm far from convinced that either of them *do* say
: : that what the OP wanted to do was unacceptable.

The charter quite clearly prohibits advertising. A message pointing to a
website containing that advert must be considered part of it.

eBay also quite clearly state that Usenet must not be used as a means of
promoting an auction/sale.

It seems perfectly clear to me.

: : Even if
: : you *can* interpret them to say that, it's using a
: : sledge hammer to crack a nut if you invoke rules which
: : are designed to prevent blatent commercialism and apply
: : them to someone who simply wants to draw attention to a
: : one-off private sale.

A one off private sale is still a sale.

: : Far too many column inches have been wasted on a
: : subject which is trivial, and really doesn't matter in
: : the overall scheme of things.

To you.

Ivor

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:52:20 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue]
>The charter quite clearly prohibits advertising. A message pointing to a
>website containing that advert must be considered part of it.[/color]

But who gives a monkeys about your precious charter except yourself
Ivor ? stuff it theirs a good chap .

[email]mymail@hotmail.co.uk[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> But who gives a monkeys about your precious charter except yourself
> Ivor ? stuff it theirs a good chap .[/color]

Back in your box.

The charter defines the newsgroup - we would not have one without the
other. If people ignore the charter then it reduces the SNR and
therefore the usefulness of uk.telecom.voip as a forum to discuss UK VoIP.

<mymail@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nvhdc3hegd6mvuf6qgdqk9ndmpo0vu15om@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>
> But who gives a monkeys about your precious charter except yourself
> Ivor ? stuff it theirs a good chap .[/color]

Using your logic, why should anyone give a monkeys if a gang of drunken yobs
set upon you at your front door one night?

Rob

On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:15:36 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:[color=green]
>> But who gives a monkeys about your precious charter except yourself
>> Ivor ? stuff it theirs a good chap .[/color]
>
>Back in your box.
>
>The charter defines the newsgroup - we would not have one without the
>other. If people ignore the charter then it reduces the SNR and
>therefore the usefulness of uk.telecom.voip as a forum to discuss UK VoIP.[/color]

We all know that but there is no need for Ivor to be forever reminding
people of the fact or for ever going on about spammers either ,just
who the hell does Ivor think he is God or Summet .

<mymail@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8v0ec3l8nb68mnfgsvcdjunk63p6jupjhd@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:15:36 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> We all know that but there is no need for Ivor to be forever reminding
> people of the fact or for ever going on about spammers either ,just
> who the hell does Ivor think he is God or Summet .[/color]

And who the hell do you think you are?
I have placed you in my blocked senders list about 8 times now, under
different identities, exercising my right to read messages from whom I
like, but you keep changing your identity to deny me that right.
What is it going to take to make you realise that your opinions are not
valued or wanted here by the vast majority of subscribers?
Don't bother replying, I have updated you to number 9.