Emulated Peripherals

From: Don Maslin <donm_at_cts.com>
Date: Sun Feb 16 23:20:01 2003

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Jay West wrote:

> > Please don't. Yes, please remove off-topic SPAM, but adverts related to
> > classic computers, commercial or not, should be allowed here provided
> > the same advert doesn't start appearing too often.
>
> My initial reaction was actually fairly difficult for me, as I know and like
> several of the people at Arraid.
>
> On the one hand, it's obviously on-topic as it lets others here know that
> there are modern drive replacements for systems we all would like to keep
> running. On the other hand, their products are generally well outside the
> price range of the home hobbyist, so not sure how much it helps us. Thus, my
> impression is that the post wasn't targeted at the listmembers, but rather
> at sales prospects the listmembers may know. Tony asked how this post was
> different than Bob Shannon's post about his drive replacement. Very simple -
> Bob wasn't posting here asking us to give the names of companies we know and
> have trusted relationships with, so he could call them and hard sell them
> his product. I'm NOT saying Bob would hard sell, or even that Arraid would
> hard sell (doubtful). But what about other companies posting here who may
> do so?
>
> So, if on-topic SPAM is allowed here as Tony requests above... guess we
> allow posting by crisis, and MBG, and keyways, and imsai.net, oh, and all
> the scrap dealers... but it's ok as long as it doesn't appear too often. Ok,
> let me start a spreadsheet, so I can track how often each company posts.
> I'll have to trace each email address on an advert, so I can tell if they're
> trying to post from another address. Oh, and I'll also have to call
> references on each company, so I know if they have a history of hardselling
> any references we give them... Ummm wait... I do have a day job.
>
> All sarcasm aside... If the membership at large wants to allow on-topic
> adverts, that's fine. But don't make it hard on ME to moderate in the
> future - for one example out of many - I suspect Tony's definition of "too
> often" (wrt adverts appearing) is different from Sellams, which is different
> from Jerome's, etc.
>
> Jay

I think that your judgement was sound in this case and worthy of
our reliance on it in the future.
                                                - don
Received on Sun Feb 16 2003 - 23:20:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:35:55 BST