NO COMMERCIAL POSTINGS, PLEASE!

Rec.collecting.books is a forum for discussion of issues relating to
book-collecting. Commercial postings of any kind are inappropriate. The one
concession is that you may put a link along with your signature at the end
of a posting that has some discussion content.

For details, see the newsgroup FAQs (http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/rcb/).

--
John
http://rarebooksinjapan.com

"John Yamamoto-Wilson" wrote in
message ...
Rec.collecting.books is a forum for discussion of issues relating to
book-collecting. Commercial postings of any kind are inappropriate.
The one
concession is that you may put a link along with your signature at the
end
of a posting that has some discussion content.

For details, see the newsgroup FAQs
(http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/rcb/).

Thanx for the reminder. I note that no one whined after you posted
this; yet when Doug (EssAdm) posted a lament about commercial posts
(7-26) he got several responses that bashed him for having the temerity
to bring it up.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote in message
...

Thanx for the reminder. I note that no one whined after you posted
this; yet when Doug (EssAdm) posted a lament about commercial posts
(7-26) he got several responses that bashed him for having the
temerity to bring it up.

Rather than simply post a lament, the OP in question suggested
changing the name of this newsgroup.

Isnt it time this newsgroup name was changed to rec.dealers.books?

I thought he was being sarcastic, but made a point nonetheless.

And rather than being "bashed", his suggestion met a measured
response, to which he chose not to reply.

"Bashing" is in the eye of the beholder. Looking at some of those
replies, its no wonder to me that the OP hasn't answered. Here's an
example of a so-called "measured response:

A fair number of the posts are by people who never post except to
complain about the content of other people's posts....I find those
annoying and out of the scope of the newsgroup. After all
this group isn't named rec.whining.but.not.contributing

The post you're responding to above is intended as a specific
deterrent to spam posters. As a reminder of the terms embodied in the
NG Charter and the FAQ, which although unenforceable in practice,
can be taken to represent the consensus view of the regular users
of the NewsGroup.

The OP was questioning the usefulness of the contribution of book
dealers to the NewsGroup in any capacity.

That's not at all how I read it, but you are free to feel slighted by
what he wrote.

" Nearly all the posts seem to be in some way commercial and
relate to bookdealing rather than book collecting.

His suggestion got no support whatsoever, but was instead met
with measured objections.

Again, "measured" is in the eye of the beholder, but thanx for your
response.

The principle one being, that if it weren't for the contributions
of dealers, posting in their dual capacity as collectors on here,
there'd probably be no NewsGroup to speak of at all.

So how exacly do you differentiate between dealers posting FA and a
spammer doing the same?

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Kindly point me to any instances whatsoever, of regular posters to
this NewsGroup, posting in their role as booksellers, "For Auction"
or "For Sale" announcements in respect of their own stock.

I have no idea who the regulars are.

As I can't find a single instance of any such post.

Of course not.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote in message
m...
"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Kindly point me to any instances whatsoever, of regular posters to
this NewsGroup, posting in their role as booksellers, "For
Auction"
or "For Sale" announcements in respect of their own stock.

I have no idea who the regulars are.

As I can't find a single instance of any such post.

Of course not.

Are you seeking to imply I'm being dishonest or disingenuous
in making my reply above?

No -- I'm saying you've defined away the problem -- you've *defined* a
regular as someone who would never make such a post; and that anyone who
would, is de facto, a spammer.

Hence, you can't find any such posts.

And then you'd further oblige me, by citing any instances of
the posts you're seeking to complain of.

As I said, I don't know who the regulars are. If I point to *any* post,
you will simply respond that the poster is not a "regular".

I will note however that when "Art Layton" decided to bow out due (in
part) to the level of "for sale" posts, you didn't dispute him. He also
incurred a somewhat less than "measured" response:

==

You have what psychologists term "grandiose thinking".
If you want to avoid Usenet, do so by all means.
Just don't think that anybody else cares a bit what you do or why you do
it.

==

Is Art a "regular"? Is the person who responded to him a "regular"?

In any event, I don't want to argue for the sake of argument. I think
EssAdm made a valid point -- if you disagree, then so be it. Your
response to him *was* courteous (as you've been with me). Perhaps the
example I quoted was not representative of the NG as a whole, but it was
the one I read that prompted me to make my own reply to John Y-W.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Booksellers happen to make a valuable contribution to this
NewsGroup and IMHO, both your own and EssAdm's objections
to their continuing presence, are both without any foundation
in fact and thoroughly misconceived.

Where and when did I ever object to the presence of booksellers in this
NG? I simply agreed with both EssAdm and Art Layton that there are
posts in this NG that violate the charter.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote in message
...

Where and when did I ever object to the presence of booksellers in
this
NG? I simply agreed with both EssAdm and Art Layton that there are
posts in this NG that violate the charter.

If that was the case, then why did you object to the original
injunction
against spam posts which is the subject title of this thread ?

I didn't -- if you'll go back and read what I actually said, you'll see
this to be true.

NO COMMERCIAL POSTINGS, PLEASE!

Why are you contributing to this thread at all?

Hmm, because I have an opinion, and I don't need your permission to post
it?

What precisely is your point if you wholeheartedly agree with
sentiment expressed in the above posting?

I expressed my point in my original post in this thread.

So why did you post in the first place?

I noticed an inconsistency in how EssAdm was answered vs. a total
non-reaction to what the moderator posted. You've already said you see
no inconsistency there.

So we see things differently -- why is that such a problem for you? If
you don't see any problems here, then one might just as well ask why you
responded to me?

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

It's a problem for me Mr. Goodwin, because in effect you're accusing
certain posters on this NewsGroup - specifically certain booksellers -
of being hypocrites.

I've done nothing of the sort. Please feel free to quote me if you
believe otherwise.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

Your first contribution to this thread, Mr. Goodwin, was as follows -

Or do you wish to deny this as well?

"Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote in message
...

" Thanx for the reminder. I note that no one whined after
you posted this; yet when Doug (EssAdm) posted a lament
about commercial post (7-26) he got several responses
that bashed him for having the temerity to bring it up."

Of course I made the post.

You're claiming there, that the posters who "bashed" Doug
(EssAdm) as you put it, were being hypocritical and two-faced,
in not also "whining" about John Yamamoto Wilson's post.

Reading is fundamental, Mike. I never claimed you or anyone else is a
hypocrite. But if the shoe fits, wear it, and as I said, please feel
free to feel slighted.

Basically Mr. Goodwin, you entered into this thread, and onto this
NewsGroup, leveling all sorts of accusations about posters, whom both
you and EssAdm took to be booksellers, being hypocritical.

As anyone can see from the post you quoted above, I did no such thing.
In fact, I don't believe I used the word "dealer" or "bookseller"
anywhere in my original post.

To admit that you were, and still are, totally in the wrong.

Wrong about what? That EssAdm got replies, but the Moderator did not?
I believe the facts show that I am absolutely correct on that point.

It is *you* who have turned that simple observation into a litany of
imagined hurts and wrongs.

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

So are you now going to further insult everyone's intelligence
Mr Goodwin, by trying to claim that Doug isn't referring explicitly
and exclusively to book dealers in the above post ?

Apparently, the only person feeling insulted here is you, Michael.

But given that you do indeed appear to believe that John
Yamamoto-Wilson
is the Moderator of this NewsGroup, it would appear that in addition,
both Doug and yourself are seeking to cast aspersions on John Wilson's
competence in his (wholly mythical) role as the moderator of the
NewsGroup.

My, you have quite an imagination -- where exactly do I "cast apersions"
on Mr. Wilson?

Instead of beating about the bushes with all
these unsubstantiated allegations about the detrimental affect which
book dealers are having on this NewsGroup ?

Speaking of false allegations!!

I never said anything about "the detrimental affect which book dealers
are having on this Newsgroup" -- but please feel free to quote me if you
believe otherwise.