Foundations of F# - Coming Very Soon

[Jon Harrop]

But you're not sure that most would, apparently?

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.

As common as it is, it's also completely faulty logic. It fails to
recognize the investment in the future, to attempt to keep the newsgroup
better *in the long run*.

You see discussing turnip trucks as an "investment in the future"?

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.

Just as you completely fail to see the long-term benefits in rejecting
commercial advertising in the newsgroup, you also fail to see the
long-term benefit in accepting a short-term off-topic digression to try to
combat commercial advertising in the newsgroup.

Interesting that you chose to phrase that as "you fail to see ..." rather
than "let me tell you my vision of the future ...".

Besides, inasmuch as the posts *are* about this newsgroup, they are
decidedly on-topic, in a meta-topic sort of way.

IMHO, Robert's post was more on-topic than many of the responses.

Frankly, when I first started using this newsgroup, I
found it a bit distracting that in fact it's used in large part to ask
questions not specific to C#, but rather to the .NET Framework. But at
least that disparity has some logical justification, since practically
everyone using C# is writing to the .NET Framework. I've given up and
gone "with the flow", since it's clear that's the wide-spread, commonly
accepted convention of this newsgroup.

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. My vision of the future is that contributors won't
have to worry about plagues of insults.

However, the fact is that you are entirely correct. 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#.

But this isn't a book club. At the very least, posts about a "free
e-book" should be limited to books about C# (this being a C# programming
newsgroup).

So Robert should have started by explaining that F# is a testbed for
features that may make it into C#?

Even in that case though, I just don't see the relevance. It
would be one thing for someone to post a brief notice "hey, I saw this
great free e-book about C# that's useful". It's entirely another for
someone to intend to start a discussion about the e-book, or for someone
to post about their own e-book while at the same time advertising a paid
subscription to a related service.

Do you think that all of my posts are spam because they contain signatures
that reference our products?

Exceptions to the "posts about C# and .NET programming questions"
boundaries of the newsgroup should be very narrow, and carefuly
considered. Commercial advertising definitely falls outside that charter,
as does a variety of other things even when they are nominally related to
C# or .NET.

Balancing advertising and content is not easy. Industry has shifted and many
people now expect a lot for free. 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.

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. Generally, this is because
the people who object are precisely those whose lifestyle is provided for
by innovators like Robert.

 

[Jon Harrop]

But, since we're on the (off-topic) subject of F#, do you think that's
likely to "take off" any time soon...?

Yes, but not in the way that C# did. The F# community will grow
substantially over the next year because three books are coming out on F#.
Of the three books, Robert's is probably the most suitable for C#
programmers. Mine is targetted at scientists and engineers.

Is it going to find its way into a future version of VS.NET...?

This is being discussed on the F# mailing list at the moment. Different
people want different things but the F# development team at Microsoft
Research are happy to continue F# as a research project. This means more
releases, faster development, more experimental features, better support
and so on.

Depending on your angle, this can good or it can be bad.

F# is much better than C# for scientists and engineers writing disposable
code to do analysis using a free language with all the bells and whistles
of the .NET platform. This is why we're developing tools aimed at technical
users:

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_for_visualization/

For general developers, F# is harder to learn than C# (hence being branded
as a language for smart programmers) but development is much faster and
development costs are much lower. Moreover, the C# market is saturated with
tools and components but the F# market is completely empty. So anyone
selling suitable C# tools (e.g. NumericEdge) can make money by writing an
elegant F# interface and sell it.

Reason I ask is historical. Until the early betas of the first version of
VS.NET, I made my living almost exclusively with VB and its derivatives
e.g. VBA, VBScript etc, but it took me less than a day with C# to realise
that I much preferred it. However, I don't feel any more loyalty to C#
than I did to VB - if and when something better comes along, I'll drop C#
just as quickly as I dropped VB.

I think you need to examine the merits and pitfalls of adopting a language
like F# in more detail. For example, using F# turns up bugs in lots of
development tools like the ANTS profiler, which does not yet handle tail
calls.

If you want F# to pay off then you must put significant effort into learning
how and when to use functional programming.

Do you think that F# is the next "big thing..."?

I'm hoping that most developers will continue to struggle with C# because
that gives me an advantage.

For anyone interested in learning the basics of F#, we have a free
introductory article on our site:

http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/fsharp_journal/free/introduction.html

 

[Peter Duniho]

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

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

However, the fact is that you are entirely correct. 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#.

I would have *far* rather Robert had started a genuine discussion about
the relative merits of C# and F#, and where it might be useful to use
each. A link to the book in the signature would have been fine, and it
could certainly have been a valuable technical discussion.

As it was, the post was just a plain advert, multi-posted to several
groups. As such, it displayed poor netiquette. I believe Robert didn't
make the post *knowing* that it was inappropriate - but your comment
suggested that even if he *had* known it was inappropriate, he should
have posted it anyway. I don't know about anyone else, but that's what
has caused me more annoyance than the advert itself.

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 you seem to think that anyone pointing out that the advert was
inappropriate is making a "negative insult". The advert *was*
inappropriate here. If someone reported a bug to you, would you treat
that as a "negative insult" to be ignored too? I'd imagine not - what's
the difference here?


Is there *commercial* merit in worrying about people who care about
netiquette? Maybe, maybe not.

Is there *ethical* merit in it? Absolutely.


Do you welcome cold callers selling you double-glazing? Most people
don't.

Are you pleased to receive a load of junk snail mail? Most people
aren't.

Why should unwanted electronic missives be thought of any more kindly?


Out of interest, would you be championing the cause of unwanted
advertising so vocally if the subject of the advert weren't so close to
your heart?

 

[Jon Harrop]

I would have *far* rather Robert had started a genuine discussion about
the relative merits of C# and F#, and where it might be useful to use
each. A link to the book in the signature would have been fine, and it
could certainly have been a valuable technical discussion.

I agree.

As it was, the post was just a plain advert, multi-posted to several
groups. As such, it displayed poor netiquette. I believe Robert didn't
make the post *knowing* that it was inappropriate - but your comment
suggested that even if he *had* known it was inappropriate, he should
have posted it anyway.

My suggestion was to post something different.

Again you seem to think that anyone pointing out that the advert was
inappropriate is making a "negative insult".

From my point of view, you seem to think that statements like "You really
should quit while you are behind" are positive and kind.

The advert *was* inappropriate here.

Almost as inappropriate as the response, IMHO.

If someone reported a bug to you, would you treat
that as a "negative insult" to be ignored too? I'd imagine not - what's
the difference here?

The difference is that these people reported what they believed to be a bug
to everyone else as well: adding to the number of off-topics posts in this
forum, worsening the signal-to-noise ratio and making this a generally
unpleasant list to read.

Usenet is overflowing with written incontinence and that spoils it more for
me that the odd advert. As I'm sure you'll see, just stating this opinion
apparently warrants an inevitable torrent of pointless slander.

Do you welcome cold callers selling you double-glazing? Most people
don't.

Robert didn't come to my door or even ring my phone, he posted on a public
forum.

If I went to my local park and saw an advertisement nailed to a tree next to
a band of children who were spitting on each other, I would not write an
objection and nail it to the tree underneath the ad or claim that the ad
was jeapordising the future of our park. Nor would I publically condone
spitting.

Indeed, a man came up to my wife and I in Starbucks in Cambridge recently
and told me about a book he was writing. Although it may come as a surprise
to C# programmers, my immediate response was not "You really should quit
while you are behind", or "Moreover, another book is the last thing most
people need", or "We're already drowning in a sea of books" or even "I will
not visit you site or even consider using your 'product' on principle". In
fact, we had a delightful and polite conversation.

Perhaps that was wrong of me. Perhaps I should have been disgusted, shouted
at him in front of everyone, told everyone that Starbucks was an
inappropriate forum for his topic of conversation.

Are you pleased to receive a load of junk snail mail? Most people
aren't.

Robert did not post anything to me: I downloaded his advert and chose to
read it.

Why should unwanted electronic missives be thought of any more kindly?

Why pander to underage/unemployed penniless freeloader idealist commies but
shun the guy who is trying to feed his kids whilst doing pioneering work?

You conjectured that Robert's post would have an adverse affect on sales of
his book. Allow me to draw a conjecture: the people who took the time and
effort to post wholly-negative statements about Robert's work will not go
on to write books, found companies, invent anything, inspire anyone or even
generally make a difference to the world around them.

Out of interest, would you be championing the cause of unwanted
advertising so vocally if the subject of the advert weren't so close to
your heart?

Yes, because we don't hide behind our parents/employers to do the
advertising for us.

 

[Peter Duniho]

From my point of view, you seem to think that statements like "You really
should quit while you are behind" are positive and kind.

First, just because one person posts that, that doesn't justify your
characterization of all the respondents as being insulting. Secondly,
again I have to question what your threshold for insult is. You are
definitely taking a very unpopular position, and your attempts to defend
that position have included no real justification other than "I can make
more money advertising".

I hardly think it should be considered an insult for someone to point that
out to you. It seems to me that you really *should* quit while you are
behind, as it seems highly unlikely that you will come out ahead in ths
discussion.

Almost as inappropriate as the response, IMHO.

Much more inappropriate than the response, IMHO.

The difference is that these people reported what they believed to be a
bug
to everyone else as well: adding to the number of off-topics posts in
this
forum, worsening the signal-to-noise ratio and making this a generally
unpleasant list to read.

Well, first of all, if you think this discussion is hurting the newsgroup,
all you need to do is exit it. You can't sit there and claim that this
thread is a problem and yet continue to contribute to it. I assure you
that if you don't post a message for someone to respond to, the thread
will die a quick death.

Secondly, again you are failing to recognize the long-term goal here.
Even if this thread does make the group unpleasant for people to read the
newsgroup (well, people who can't be bothered to use effective tools to
access the newsgroup anyway), it is a short-term thing, with the goal of a
long-term benefit.

Thirdly, whether you find this thread unpleasant or not, that doesn't
automatically make it insulting. As near as I can tell, the only real
reason you have to find it unpleasant is that multiple people are pointing
out the fallacies in your justification of advertising. That does not in
and of itself justify interpreting the responses as insulting.

Usenet is overflowing with written incontinence and that spoils it more
for
me that the odd advert. As I'm sure you'll see, just stating this opinion
apparently warrants an inevitable torrent of pointless slander.

I'm still waiting to hear what the first "torrent of pointless slander"
was.

As well, for someone who is so sensitive to being insulted, you sure do
throw around a lot of emotionally charged language. Seems a bit
hypocritical to me.

Robert didn't come to my door or even ring my phone, he posted on a
public
forum.

He posted on a public forum where advertising is not welcome. His post is
no different than a telemarketer calling you during dinner, or knocking on
your front door.

If I went to my local park and saw an advertisement nailed to a tree
next to a band of children who were spitting on each other,

I refer you to my above comment about the emotionally charged language.
In what way are we, the users and contributors of this newsgroup, like "a
band of children who were spitting on each other"? If we are not, why in
the world would you use that phrase in your analogy?

Again, for someone who is putting up so much in the way of complaints
about being insulting, you sure don't seem to have any hesitance to insult
others.

I would not write an
objection and nail it to the tree underneath the ad or claim that the ad
was jeapordising the future of our park.

A more appropriate analogy would be an advertisement in the local park,
nailed to a tree where advertisements are prohibited (and in fact, in all
the parks around here, that sort of this IS prohibited). And you can bet
that if I saw someone nailing an advertisement to a tree, I would call
them out on it, explaining to them that what they were doing is not
allowed, and that I do my best to avoid doing business with people who use
illegal methods to advertise.

Nor would I publically condone spitting.

I really don't see what spitting has to do with anything.

Indeed, a man came up to my wife and I in Starbucks in Cambridge recently
and told me about a book he was writing.

"To my wife and me", you meant to write, I'm sure.

Anyway, how did he approach you? Was he a complete stranger? Did start
the conversation by handing you an order form with which you could buy his
book? If either of those are not the case, then your experience is not
similar to this at all.

And I can assure you that when I am sitting in a public area and someone
approaches me trying to sell me their product, I tell them to get lost and
not bother me again.

Although it may come as a surprise
to C# programmers, my immediate response was not "You really should quit
while you are behind", or "Moreover, another book is the last thing most
people need", or "We're already drowning in a sea of books" or even "I
will
not visit you site or even consider using your 'product' on principle".
In
fact, we had a delightful and polite conversation.

Well, people like you are the reason that spam still exists. But the fact
that there is the occasional person willing (eager, even, it seems) to
have other individuals interrupt them to present them with their own
marketing does not make that sort of behavior socially acceptable. It
might make it profitable, but it doesn't make it socially acceptable.

Perhaps that was wrong of me. Perhaps I should have been disgusted,
shouted
at him in front of everyone, told everyone that Starbucks was an
inappropriate forum for his topic of conversation.

You certainly should have discouraged him from using Starbucks as his own
personal advertising forum. But again, that's why spam works. There are
people like you who not only tolerate it, but who respond to it.

Robert did not post anything to me: I downloaded his advert and chose to
read it.

I don't know how KNode deals with downloading of newsgroup messages, but
most people have not configured their newsreaders to require them to
approve each and every message before it is downloaded and displayed. The
usual scenario is that all messages are downloaded at once, and then one
simply runs through the unread messages, reading them one by one.

Nevertheless, you again miss the point. Even if each of us specifically
has to approve each and every message for downloading and reading, if
advertising in the newsgroup becomes a permitted practice, then eventually
we will spend as much time trying to filter out the advertising as we do
just reading the messages that actually interest us. You seem to think
that this is about the inconvenience of a single advertisement, when in
fact it is not. It's about the fact that if the single advertisement is
not met with a clear rejection, it simply encourages more advertisements,
and then more, and then more, until the group is more advertisements than
useful messages.

Why pander to underage/unemployed penniless freeloader idealist commies
but
shun the guy who is trying to feed his kids whilst doing pioneering work?

Again, I refer you to the question about you complaining about insults,
while being one of the most insulting people in this thread. Not to
mention completely ignorant of the actual demographics of this newsgroup.

You conjectured that Robert's post would have an adverse affect on sales
of
his book. Allow me to draw a conjecture: the people who took the time and
effort to post wholly-negative statements about Robert's work will not go
on to write books, found companies, invent anything, inspire anyone or
even
generally make a difference to the world around them.

See above.

Yes, because we don't hide behind our parents/employers to do the
advertising for us.

See above.

Pete

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Why pander to underage/unemployed penniless freeloader idealist commies but
shun the guy who is trying to feed his kids whilst doing pioneering work?

Just this sentence is enough to make it clear there's absolutely no
point in discussing this any further with you.

Just as a parting thought though, if you were including me in your
conjecture about those who criticise "Robert's work" (noting that no-
one's criticised the book, just his choice of advertising venue) then
you're wrong in the particulars, at least. I'm currently writing a book
on C#, and I was the co-author of a Groovy book published in January. I
find your (repeated) contempt for those who dare to say that this is an
inappropriate forum for adverts utterly incomprehensible.

 

[Jon Harrop]

Secondly, again you are failing to recognize the long-term goal here.

I recognise your goal and I believe it is futile. Regardless, I find your
ideals uninteresting.

As near as I can tell, the only real
reason you have to find it unpleasant is that multiple people are pointing
out the fallacies in your justification of advertising.

As far as I can tell, you are now arguing with yourself. I think this stems
from my having snipped the bits where I was misrepresented.

Anyway, I made no attempt to justify advertising. Nor has anyone pointed out
the fallacies in anything.

Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Says the person who just wrote a dozen off-topic posts complaining about an
off-topic post.

He posted on a public forum where advertising is not welcome. His post is
no different than a telemarketer calling you during dinner, or knocking on
your front door.

Except that "Robert didn't come to my door or even ring my phone, he posted
on a public forum."

I refer you to my above comment about the emotionally charged language.
In what way are we, the users and contributors of this newsgroup, like "a
band of children who were spitting on each other"? If we are not, why in
the world would you use that phrase in your analogy?

Partly because I imagine the respondents I was referring to are primarily
children. Partly because what they say is about as useful and appealing as
spitting. Of course, the children still love spitting and if you question
why, you'll probably get spit on you.

I should probably explicitly note that I was not referring to you or the
(positive) contributors.

Again, for someone who is putting up so much in the way of complaints
about being insulting, you sure don't seem to have any hesitance to insult
others.

Note that I was non-specific as to who I was insulting whereas the people
I'm referring to where entirely specific.

A more appropriate analogy would be an advertisement in the local park,
nailed to a tree where advertisements are prohibited (and in fact, in all
the parks around here, that sort of this IS prohibited).

Breaking the law in a park has consequences. Writing six posts on usenet
does not (except getting a bit of spit on you).

And you can bet
that if I saw someone nailing an advertisement to a tree, I would call
them out on it, explaining to them

"Them" left some time ago. You've been explaining your off-topic extremist
views to everyone else.

that what they were doing is not
allowed, and that I do my best to avoid doing business with people who use
illegal methods to advertise.

Robert didn't break the law.

[Starbucks]

Anyway, how did he approach you?

On foot.

Was he a complete stranger?
Yes.

Did start
the conversation by handing you an order form with which you could buy his
book?

He started the conversation by telling me about his book that hadn't even
been printed yet. Like Robert did.

And I can assure you that when I am sitting in a public area and someone
approaches me trying to sell me their product, I tell them to get lost and
not bother me again.
Charming.

Well, people like you are the reason that spam still exists.

"People like you"?

It might make it profitable, but it doesn't make it socially acceptable.
Yes.


You certainly should have discouraged him from using Starbucks as his own
personal advertising forum.

The guy was asking for my help. I helped him. If that makes me the bad guy,
so be it.

Perhaps I should have tried to digest him from the outside, but that just
isn't my way.

But again, that's why spam works. There are
people like you who not only tolerate it, but who respond to it.

Note that only one person responded to Robert's "spam" and it was you.

I don't know how KNode deals with downloading of newsgroup messages, but
most people have not configured their newsreaders to require them to
approve each and every message before it is downloaded and displayed.

Just ask it to download subjects and not contents.

Nevertheless, you again miss the point. Even if each of us specifically
has to approve each and every message for downloading and reading, if
advertising in the newsgroup becomes a permitted practice, then eventually
we will spend as much time trying to filter out the advertising as we do
just reading the messages that actually interest us.

That extrapolation is based upon several dubious assumptions. For example, I
see no evidence that your fighting will have any effect. Regardless, I'd
rather not speculate about your future success. I wish you all the best, I
just ask that you complain directly to the person you have a beef with
rather than post it in microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp in future.

You seem to think
that this is about the inconvenience of a single advertisement, when in
fact it is not. It's about the fact that if the single advertisement is
not met with a clear rejection, it simply encourages more advertisements,
and then more, and then more, until the group is more advertisements than
useful messages.

That is fine. You are asking Robert not to spam here and I am asking you not
to tell me about Robert spamming here because I don't care.

Again, I refer you to the question about you complaining about insults,
while being one of the most insulting people in this thread.

Seeing as you love arguing with yourself: I was "pointing out the fallacies
in your justification of off-topic posting". ;-)

 

[Peter Duniho]

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.

Anyway, I made no attempt to justify advertising. Nor has anyone pointed
out
the fallacies in anything.

That's an amusing claim. You have *only* attempted to justify
advertising, and plenty of examples of fallacies in your reasoning have
been pointed out.

Partly because I imagine the respondents I was referring to are primarily
children.

Why do you imagine that? Does it make you feel better about their
criticisms to discount them as children? Does that help you to ignore the
truth in what they have to say?

Partly because what they say is about as useful and appealing as
spitting.

Only because you are predisposed to find what they have to say unpleasant.

Note that I was non-specific as to who I was insulting whereas the people
I'm referring to where entirely specific.

How does being non-specific help? If anything, by failing to be specific,
your criticisms are received more broadly. Why use a shotgun when a
scalpel will suffice?

Breaking the law in a park has consequences. Writing six posts on usenet
does not (except getting a bit of spit on you).

Actually, we're talking about a single post, and it certainly is not
without its own consequences, both short-term and long-term. It has
consequences to the long-term health of the newsgroup if left
unchallenged, and it has consequences to the person posting the
advertisement inasmuch as people who are offended by advertising in a
newsgroup where advertising isn't welcome treat the product negatively.

"Them" left some time ago. You've been explaining your off-topic
extremist
views to everyone else.

Actually, I suspect "them" were never here. As is the case with all
spammers, the person who posted the advertisement is not a regular
contributor here and probably never bothered to read a single post in this
newsgroup, never mind contribute with any of his own posts. However, that
is not to say that a posted response to his post has no effect, or is not
worth making.

Regardless of whether "them" are here still or not, the fact is that your
analogy fails, due to the simple fact that inasmuch as the scenario you
propose is similar, so too would my response be.

Robert didn't break the law.

So what? The person in your hypothetical situation did, and so my
response to them is tailored to that scenario.

He started the conversation by telling me about his book that hadn't even
been printed yet. Like Robert did.

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.

Charming.

I care not one bit as to whether I have charmed people who open their
conversation with me by violating basic principles of common courtesy.

"People like you"?

You allegedly admit to responding positively to unsolicited advertising in
inappropriate forums. So, yes..."people like you". If everyone would
simply refuse to put up with the bad behavior of spammers, there wouldn't
be spam. Spam exists because it *is* a cost-effective advertising medium.

The guy was asking for my help. I helped him. If that makes me the bad
guy, so be it.

Did he ask you to help him by buying your book? If not, then your
situation is not analogous.

Note that only one person responded to Robert's "spam" and it was you.

You have no way to know that. My use of the word "respond" is not limited
to the act of posting a follow-up message in this newsgroup. In fact, it
is not even meant to *include* that act. I'm talking about people who see
spam and respond by purchasing the item advertised (or visiting their web
site, or whatever the advertiser sees as a positive response to their
advertisement).

That extrapolation is based upon several dubious assumptions. For
example, I
see no evidence that your fighting will have any effect.

I see no evidence that it won't have any effect. In fact, given that bad
behavior is best suppressed on a society-wide basis by making public
notice of it and why it's bad, a public response can be a very effective
means of helping prevent similar behavior on the part of others in the
future.

Regardless, I'd
rather not speculate about your future success. I wish you all the best,
I
just ask that you complain directly to the person you have a beef with
rather than post it in microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp in
future.

You will have as much success with that request as I have with my request
that you refrain from advertising in newsgroups in the future.

That is fine. You are asking Robert not to spam here and I am asking you
not
to tell me about Robert spamming here because I don't care.

You are doing more than that. You are arguing that spamming is fine.
Furthermore, you obviously *do* care, otherwise you wouldn't have invested
so much time responding to the thread.

Pete

 

[Jon Harrop]

You find them interesting enough to continue the discussion.

About something else.

That's an amusing claim. You have *only* attempted to justify
advertising, and plenty of examples of fallacies in your reasoning have
been pointed out.

Rather than choosing to condemn Robert I chose to condemn you.

Why do you imagine that?

Spelling, grammar, content, lack of knowledge about the world around them.
All consistent with that of a child.

Does it make you feel better about their
criticisms to discount them as children?

I don't see "I, for one, get so p*****d off at such postings" as a
criticism.

Does that help you to ignore the truth in what they have to say?

Robert could have posted something completely different and these people
would still have gotten upset. Hence my advice to ignore the freeloaders.

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.

It has
consequences to the long-term health of the newsgroup if left
unchallenged, and it has consequences to the person posting the
advertisement inasmuch as people who are offended by advertising in a
newsgroup where advertising isn't welcome treat the product negatively.

We've covered this: I don't believe your plague of off-topic posts will
deter spammers. 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.

Actually, I suspect "them" were never here. As is the case with all
spammers, the person who posted the advertisement is not a regular
contributor here and probably never bothered to read a single post in this
newsgroup, never mind contribute with any of his own posts. However, that
is not to say that a posted response to his post has no effect, or is not
worth making.

Regardless of whether "them" are here still or not, the fact is that your
analogy fails, due to the simple fact that inasmuch as the scenario you
propose is similar, so too would my response be.

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...

So what?

There is no point in putting on a pretend judge outfit and waving a FAQ at
him.

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 care not one bit as to whether I have charmed people who open their
conversation with me by violating basic principles of common courtesy.

Enough with the spitting already.

You allegedly admit to responding positively to unsolicited advertising in
inappropriate forums.

If you consider my replying and saying "congratulations" as a wholly
inappropriate response, yes.

So, yes..."people like you". If everyone would
simply refuse to put up with the bad behavior of spammers, there wouldn't
be spam.
No.

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.

Did he ask you to help him by buying your book? If not, then your
situation is not analogous.

He was older than Robert "so the situation is not analogous".

You have no way to know that.

Ask Robert?

My use of the word "respond" is not limited
to the act of posting a follow-up message in this newsgroup. In fact, it
is not even meant to *include* that act. I'm talking about people who see
spam and respond by purchasing the item advertised (or visiting their web
site, or whatever the advertiser sees as a positive response to their
advertisement).

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.

I see no evidence that it won't have any effect. In fact, given that bad
behavior is best suppressed on a society-wide basis by making public
notice of it and why it's bad, a public response can be a very effective
means of helping prevent similar behavior on the part of others in the
future.

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.

You will have as much success with that request as I have with my request
that you refrain from advertising in newsgroups in the future.

I have already advertised here dozens of times. Of the thousands of
respondents, basically none objected. However, all this means is that I am
better at dressing up my spam than Robert is.

To put it another way, anyone here could have rephrased their objection
as "if you're going to post an off-topic ad on this C# forum could you
please make it relevant to C# by discussing the relative merits of the
different approaches?".

You are doing more than that. You are arguing that spamming is fine.

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.

Furthermore, you obviously *do* care, otherwise you wouldn't have invested
so much time responding to the thread.

My efforts in this thread are really two fold:

Firstly, I am trying to understand why people respond in the way they do.

Secondly, I am trying to disuade you from writing lots of off-topic posts
complaining about off-topic posting.

However, I am failing.

 

[Peter Duniho]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Jon Harrop]

I'm sure that's great for your ego, but frankly it's a pretty ignorant way
to go about reading posts.
...
I made one post.
...
good thing I didn't do that.
...
I'll take that as a "no"
...
you have a very immature way about you yourself.
...
it turns out that you lied about the situation being in any way like
Robert's attempt to sell his book here
...
Spammers don't "believe it is a cost-effective advertising medium".
...
Well, thankfully that's not what happened.
...
I posted a single message.
...
If you don't understand by now, you don't have the capacity to.
...

An adult would not get offended by someone implying they were a child.

 

[Peter Duniho]

An adult would not get offended by someone implying they were a child.

Says who? I didn't find that characteristic trait of an adult listed in
my dictionary. And even if you're right, how is that relevant?