We can speculate either way but only a fraction of a percent of the
people
who've read Robert's post felt strongly enough either way to voice their
opinions.
It is always the case that even as a large number of people may be upset
about something, few people feel strongly enough to be motivated to *do*
something about it. This is no different. Don't confuse lack of input
with lack of concern or lack of opinion.
You see discussing turnip trucks as an "investment in the future"?
You keep bringing up "turnip trucks". Why is that? Frankly, I am of the
opinion that you already are aware of the broad rejection of advertising
as part of the newsgroup community. However, I'm willing to give you the
benefit of the doubt, but the only way to do that is to assume that you
really do have a naive, "born yesterday" knowledge of newsgroups. In
other words, "just fell off the turnip truck".
If you're offended by the "turnip truck" comment, all that means is that
my suspicion is correct and that you *are* being disingenuous by feigning
ignorance of the community-wide "no advertising" standard.
Regardless, I do not see a newsgroup free of adverts by plagued by petty
insults as better in the long run. Not only is this worse, there is
nothing we can do to stop the trend.
What petty insults? Is this still about the turnip truck? As I
mentioned, I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. I don't see
how you can be offended by that. But then, you seem to be taking offense
at a broad variety of inoffensive comments, so...whatever.
Interesting that you chose to phrase that as "you fail to see ..." rather
than "let me tell you my vision of the future ...".
Why is that interesting? This isn't about my vision of the future. It's
about the *current* state of affairs, and the effort required to maintain
it.
My garden looks nice *today*. If I want it to continue to look nice in
the future, I have to weed it *today*. This isn't about some idealistic
vision of the future. It's about how things are now, and what we need to
do in order to preserve that. So yes, this is about your failure to see
something, rather than some wishful hope for a new tomorrow.
IMHO, Robert's post was more on-topic than many of the responses.
Only in your opinion though. And you obviously have an axe to grind,
being an advertiser yourself.
Interesting. I think it is unfortunate that people are encouraged to
dress
up their posts as "how do I do this in C#?" just to reduce the number of
insulting responses.
Now you are just making stuff up. Who is encouraged to dress up their
posts as "how do I do this in C#" just to reduce the number of insulting
responses.
This newsgroup is remarkably free of insulting responses, and in large
part this is because nearly all of the messages are on-topic. If someone
posted something that wasn't on-topic, but was dressed up as "how do I do
this in C#", I doubt many people would be fooled, and the post would get
the same derision it would deserve without the facade.
My vision of the future is that contributors won't
have to worry about plagues of insults.
Well, I have happy news for you: your vision of the future is here today.
People who actually *contribute* absolutely do not have to worry about
plagues of insults.
But we're not talking about contributors here...we're talking about
advertisers.
However, the fact is that you are entirely correct.
I am correct, but not about what you claim I am. You are simply putting
words into my mouth here.
Robert should have
dressed his post up in such a way, perhaps giving some trivial examples
of
F# code that is very tedious to write in C# and cited some example F#
programs before explaining when it might be advisable for a C# programmer
to learn and use F#.
Baloney. He can dress his advertisement up as much as he wants, that
wouldn't change the fact that it's an advertisement, and the fact that
even if he left out a mention of his own product, any discussion
explaining the use of F# is still off-topic here.
So Robert should have started by explaining that F# is a testbed for
features that may make it into C#?
How would that change things? Whether the claim is true or not, how he
starts his advertisement doesn't change the fact that it's an
advertisement.
He can put lipstick on his pig 'till the cows come home, it's still a pig.
Do you think that all of my posts are spam because they contain
signatures that reference our products?
The short answer is "no". That said...
Frankly, I personally find signatures with advertising annoying. However,
they are *much* more broadly accepted as reasonable advertising,
especially when they are attached to messages that actually contribute to
the newsgroup in positive ways. Your signature is more like you coming to
a PC user's group meeting wearing a corporate-labeled t-shirt, and not
very much at all like posting a whole new thread dedicated only to the
advertisement of your product (which would be more like dedicating a PCUG
meeting to the promotion of a particular manufacturer's product).
Balancing advertising and content is not easy.
Bull. This is a free forum, user-supported, and not in need of any
advertiser support. Likewise, advertisers have no reasonable expectation
that they should be able to take advantage of this free forum and use it
for their own commercial gain. It is trivial to balance advertising and
content here in this newsgroup: it should be all content, and no
advertising.
Industry has shifted and many people now expect a lot for free.
What people can get for free, they do expect, true. So what?
This burdens people like Robert with the
task of learning the idiosyncrasies of each forum and tailoring the
advert accordingly, watering it down with a suitable amount of
interesting and
relevant technical content.
Actually, it burdens him in no such way. The general newsgroup community
etiquette standards apply broadly, to all newsgroups unless otherwise
specified. People like Robert (and that apparently includes you) should
not expect to use newsgroups as an advertising medium *at all*. There is
no requirement to "learn the idiosyncrasies of each forum" or to "tailor
the advertisement", since he is not welcome to to advertise here in the
first place.
For the few people who take the time and effort to write interesting and
informative articles that cite their commercial work, there is generally
no
perceivable merit in worrying about the small group of people who
inevitably respond with wholly negative insults.
Again with the "insults". What insults? Advertisements are not welcome
here. How is it an insult to say that?
As far as whether there is "perceivable merit", that goes back to the
question of what's a good reason to avoid advertising. If the only
question is the effect on net income, then that's a debatable point and an
advertiser may well decide they will get more income with advertising than
without (I disagree, but I admit it's debatable).
But that's not the only question. Some times we are expected to behave a
certain way not because it benefits us directly, but because it benefits
society as a whole. And this newsgroup is better off without
advertising. I realize advertisers tend to ignore the social aspects of
their business; either they rationalize it away, or they simply don't care
that they are being anti-social. But the fact remains that the question
of whether one should advertise here is NOT determined simply by the
answer to whether doing so will improve net profits or not.
If you take the time to look, you'll note that this newsgroup is quite
active, and includes a wealth of freely given advice and information. The
vast majority of people who do so are not unemployed, nor do they have no
outside commercial interests. And yet, somehow they manage to contribute
to the newsgroup without making it their own forum for advertisements.
Generally, this is because
the people who object are precisely those whose lifestyle is provided for
by innovators like Robert.
What a remarkably arrogant and completely unfounded comment. I doubt a
single person contributing to this thread to object to the advertisement
is in any way aided by "innovators like Robert", never mind having a
lifestyle provided for by him.
Pete