Emulated Peripherals

From: Lawrence Walker <lgwalker_at_mts.net>
Date: Mon Feb 17 12:56:00 2003

 So is the list now to to have 2 categories of Spam ? One
is acceptable if it is cunningly worded and from industry
insiders and the other from ordinary spammers is not.

 It's easy for the modulator to recognise the obvious, the
african spam that is really Scam, the Penis enlargers and
such. If industry spam is to be accepted where can we
draw the line. I frankly am enraged and offended with the
intrusive pop-ups demanding that I download some
"necessary" program in order to view some web-page,
no matter how enhancing it may be.

 By the same token I regularly get Spam from IT vendors
of repute, and occasionally even don't delete them in
disgust and I always disclaim sites or companies that
want to put me on their mailing list.

 Comparing Sellam's or M. Nadeau's notices, or FA Epay
alerts and pointers to a product a list member requests,
to discounters or "friendly" industry Spam is a straw man.
One man's Spam is anothers "info package"

 The message was obviously a shill. No question.
If business seekers or headhunters see fit to send out
Spam lures, let them do it individually, not on the list.

On the other hand, the other "no subject" message, from
analog and digital solutions, while tasteless, was
allowable, IMHO.

Do we also want to open the doors to chip vendors who
want to dismantle a working vintage machine in order to
feed some chip collectors fetish?

While my response may be considered "snide" by some
it was well within the boundaries of acceptable language
and couched in the same reasonable tone as the poster.
And the word "legacy" as used by most of the large
computer companies usually means on "the soon to be
no longer supported, but still too popular to drop without
tarnishing marketing image" list

Lawrence

 

On 16 Feb 2003, , Don Maslin wrote:

> 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


lgwalker_at_ mts.net
Received on Mon Feb 17 2003 - 12:56:00 GMT