why the acf faq CANNOT work for the acf webring (or any similiar webring)

  • Thread starter Thread starter rtdos
  • Start date Start date
R

rtdos

should be obvious. the acf faq is for software, is it not? NOTHING in the
faq states what sites are acceptable because they have freeware, shareware,
trialware, demoware, or crippleware. you cannot judge a site by its
content. if that were the case, then how many sites in pricesslessware.org
or son of spy's website would have to be removed becaue those sites also
contained shareware, crippleware, demoware, trialware, betaware, etc. ?

the acf webring is for listing of websites only and not listing of software,
am i correct ? so, explain to me why i would even need to put a link to the
faq at all or even use it as a guide (if the website contained at least ONE
freeware program that might be of usefulness to anyone)?

Whether or not I hi-jacked the acf name, the main point is I really don't
have to use the faq as a guide or link to it because I'd be listing sites
only and not software (which was my original intention).
 
Subject: why the acf faq CANNOT work for the acf webring (or any
similiar webring)
Click to expand...

Thank you soooooo much for starting yet another thread about this.

I'll try this one more time, and I will not use the three letters
which make you so irrational, in case that helps.

You have started a webring purportedly to promote freeware. To you,
that includes promoting such things as shareware, adware, and
spyware. The group does not wish its name to be associated with a
webring whose purpose includes promoting such things as shareware,
adware, and spyware. So please don't use the name
'alt.comp.freeware' for your webring.
 
rtdos said:
should be obvious. the acf faq is for software, is it not? NOTHING in the
faq states what sites are acceptable because they have freeware, shareware,
trialware, demoware, or crippleware. you cannot judge a site by its
content. if that were the case, then how many sites in pricesslessware.org
or son of spy's website would have to be removed becaue those sites also
contained shareware, crippleware, demoware, trialware, betaware, etc. ?

the acf webring is for listing of websites only and not listing of software,
am i correct ? so, explain to me why i would even need to put a link to the
faq at all or even use it as a guide (if the website contained at least ONE
freeware program that might be of usefulness to anyone)?

Whether or not I hi-jacked the acf name, the main point is I really don't
have to use the faq as a guide or link to it because I'd be listing sites
only and not software (which was my original intention).
Click to expand...
Then it seems the simplest answer it to call your ring something else.
 
»Q« said:
Thank you soooooo much for starting yet another thread about this.

I'll try this one more time, and I will not use the three letters
which make you so irrational, in case that helps.

You have started a webring purportedly to promote freeware. To you,
that includes promoting such things as shareware, adware, and
spyware. The group does not wish its name to be associated with a
webring whose purpose includes promoting such things as shareware,
adware, and spyware. So please don't use the name
'alt.comp.freeware' for your webring.
Click to expand...

Conversely, and perhaps of greater relevance, is that ACF should not
endorse a site or webring or whatever, that contains some grab bag of
assorted "ware" types, some of which just might happen to be freeware. I
guess there's no way of stopping anybody using the ACF name (in any
context) but there is certainly scope on ACF itself to comment on other
sites etc., as is often the case at present. I see lots of posts saying
"hardly any freeware here, not worth a visit", and I appreciate the
lodown.
 
rtdos said:
should be obvious. the acf faq is for software, is it not? NOTHING in the
faq states what sites are acceptable because they have freeware, shareware,
trialware, demoware, or crippleware. you cannot judge a site by its
content. if that were the case, then how many sites in pricesslessware.org
or son of spy's website would have to be removed becaue those sites also
contained shareware, crippleware, demoware, trialware, betaware, etc. ?

the acf webring is for listing of websites only and not listing of software,
am i correct ? so, explain to me why i would even need to put a link to the
faq at all or even use it as a guide (if the website contained at least ONE
freeware program that might be of usefulness to anyone)?

Whether or not I hi-jacked the acf name, the main point is I really don't
have to use the faq as a guide or link to it because I'd be listing sites
only and not software (which was my original intention).


--
*** REPLY REQUESTED WHEN CONVENIENT ***

Woodzy (sysop at rtdos dot com)
http://www.rtdos.com
Click to expand...

Well if you continue to use this NGs name then the least
you should do is abide by its FAQ/RULES/CHARTER.

And IMO you should have asked if this group wanted
and would support a webring before starting one.

Bobby
 
To help stop all this chatter (mine included)

Can Susan or Genna put up a disclaimer on the pricelessware stie
that would dis-accoiate A.C.F. from this stupid webring?

Just my opinion and suggestion.

Bobby
 
Thank you soooooo much for starting yet another thread about this.

I'll try this one more time, and I will not use the three letters
which make you so irrational, in case that helps.

You have started a webring purportedly to promote freeware. To you,
that includes promoting such things as shareware, adware, and
spyware. The group does not wish its name to be associated with a
webring whose purpose includes promoting such things as shareware,
adware, and spyware. So please don't use the name
'alt.comp.freeware' for your webring.
Click to expand...

This is what I should have said in my post earlier. Thanx, Q. I
appreciate it.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
El Gee

Did you hear the one about the dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac?
He would stay up late every night and wonder if there was a dog.
Remove yourhat to reply ... but it
may take a while. Best to go to www (dot) mistergeek (dot) com and
reply from there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 
Conversely, and perhaps of greater relevance, is that ACF should
not endorse a site or webring or whatever, that contains some grab
bag of assorted "ware" types, some of which just might happen to
be freeware. I guess there's no way of stopping anybody using the
ACF name (in any context) but there is certainly scope on ACF
itself to comment on other sites etc., as is often the case at
present. I see lots of posts saying "hardly any freeware here, not
worth a visit", and I appreciate the lodown.
Click to expand...

I notice that rtdos has passed through the group, srating at least
one new thread and responding to some posts but not to these two of
yours and mine, and he apparently intends to keep using the a.c.f
name for the webring.

Sietse's idea, posted in
<is looking more and
more to me like a very good option to warn people it's not worth a
visit and to warn webmasters that it's a bad idea to join that ring.
 
Bobby said:
Can Susan or Genna put up a disclaimer on the pricelessware stie that
would dis-accoiate A.C.F. from this stupid webring?
Click to expand...

Already been requested. Dead silence. Sounds like they actually want
to be associated with it, or they'd take this simple step.

Why are you posting to alt.freeware.games, as well. This is not their
issue. [corrected]
 
Already been requested. Dead silence. Sounds like they actually
want to be associated with it, or they'd take this simple step.
Click to expand...

Silence does not imply a desire to be associated with it. I would
rather they keep the pricelessware.org site out of this entirely.
If rtdos (or anyone else) tries to start a webring using the
Pricelessware name, then pricelessware.org should object.
Why are you posting to alt.freeware.games, as well. This is not
their issue. [corrected]
Click to expand...

rtdos crossposts, and people follow him. Thanks for pointing it
out - hopefully people will trim the Newsgroup list from now on when
replying.
 
»Q« said:
<news:[email protected]>:
Click to expand...
Silence does not imply a desire to be associated with it. I would
rather they keep the pricelessware.org site out of this entirely.
If rtdos (or anyone else) tries to start a webring using the
Pricelessware name, then pricelessware.org should object.
Click to expand...

Lack of action *will result* in that association.

Pricelessware is, and is billed as, a creation of ACF. For
Pricelessware to maintain that connection and not be tainted by the
rogue webring, by association, as AFC itself will be, it has to be made
very clear on the site that the webring *is* rogue. As well as in the
real ACF FAQ, down under.
Why are you posting to alt.freeware.games, as well. This is not
their issue. [corrected]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

(I should have said "alt.comp.freeware.games".)
rtdos crossposts, and people follow him. Thanks for pointing it
out - hopefully people will trim the Newsgroup list from now on when
replying.
Click to expand...

If he's rtdos is polluting and stealing from alt.comp.freeware.games,
too, then this probably *should* be posted there. I didn't know he
was trying to **** them over, too. [correcting my correction]
 
»Q« said:
Silence does not imply a desire to be associated with it. I would
rather they keep the pricelessware.org site out of this entirely.
If rtdos (or anyone else) tries to start a webring using the
Pricelessware name, then pricelessware.org should object.
Click to expand...


I haven't gotten the post Blinky replied to - have been trying to find
it and reread the thread (threads?) - haven't managed to do that yet.

It was my impression that the consensus was to do nothing quite yet. If
the group thinks a notice should be posted on the PL site I'll be happy
to do it.

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http:www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
Blinky said:
Lack of action *will result* in that association.

Pricelessware is, and is billed as, a creation of ACF. For
Pricelessware to maintain that connection and not be tainted by the
rogue webring, by association, as AFC itself will be, it has to be made
very clear on the site that the webring *is* rogue. As well as in the
real ACF FAQ, down under.
Click to expand...

Since you ask - IMO putting such a notice on the PL site is a decision
to be made by ACF newsgroup participants.

AFAIK there is no consensus for this action as yet.

If the group decides that it *should* be done it *will* be done.

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http:www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
»Q« said:
It's <It was a followup in the "why the acf faq CANNOT work for the acf
webring (or any similiar webring)" thread, with the subject changed.
I don't think your are missing anything else in the subthread.

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=r%[email protected]
Click to expand...

Thanks Q - discovered I'm missing *another* post - in a related thread.
Had that problem a while back - thought it had been cured. :(

Susan
--
Pricelessware: http:www.pricelessware.org
PL2003: http://www.pricelessware.org/2003/about2003PL.htm
PL2004 Review: http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php
alt.comp.freeware FAQ (short) - maintained by John F.
http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
 
Since you ask - IMO putting such a notice on the PL site is a
decision to be made by ACF newsgroup participants.

AFAIK there is no consensus for this action as yet.

If the group decides that it *should* be done it *will* be done.
Click to expand...
Count me as a vote to do it.
 
Blinky the Shark wrote: [snip]
Pricelessware is, and is billed as, a creation of ACF. For
Pricelessware to maintain that connection and not be tainted by
the rogue webring, by association, as AFC itself will be, it has
to be made very clear on the site that the webring *is* rogue.
As well as in the real ACF FAQ, down under.
Click to expand...

Since you ask - IMO putting such a notice on the PL site is a
decision to be made by ACF newsgroup participants.

AFAIK there is no consensus for this action as yet.

If the group decides that it *should* be done it *will* be done.

Susan
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Back
Top