(no subject)

From: Richard Caley (MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk)
Date: 11/05/02 

From: Richard Caley <MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 16:22:00 GMT

In article <86wunsaw8r.fsf@potato.vegetable.org.uk>, Tim Haynes (th) writes:

>> Life is too short to evaluate everything ever advertised.

th> But it's not too short for some people to post actively slagging it off
th> without investigation?

A quick usenet post takes 20 seconds. Evaluating a product takes a
day at least (ok, real turkeys show themsleves qucker, but you have to
plan on a day if you expect to find out if somethign is useful).

th> And I wonder why the quality of Usenet is so *** these days when nobody
th> does any research before sounding off...

These days? I've been on since 1984 and it was as `bad' then, just
smaller. It's always been for opinions and chat. If you want real
information, buy a book.

>> If you wanted a loan would you (a) go through the junk mail you have
>> gotten in the past month, (b) watch late night cable TV and not teh
>> contact names of the loan sharks or (c) ontact a handfulof organisations
>> you have reason to trust?

th> d) go to a reputable site where I can compare loans. I can name 2 here of
th> relevance here in the UK without recourse to google.

That is a subset of (c). The point is, the junk mail (electrons and
dead trees) I presume you also recieve about financial services
doesn't even rate thought. Same for software.

>> How about by `I didn't ask for this, it is commercial and it came in
>> email'?

th> Bingo. U, C and E all in one. Note that there are alleged-people out there
th> who say "uh-oh, it's got hotmail in the headers, 10 years ago that would've
th> been spam, so let's drop it and ignore any friends I've got on that
th> system".

Simple self presevation. I find it is more useful to doa first cut on
who it is to, but from hotmail is a good statistical indicator of
spam.

Friends don't let friends use hotmail.

>> And have it presumed to be worthless.

th> ...by people who presume things.

Everyone presumes things. I presume my chair is not about to
quantum-jump across the room and that adverts on usenet are from the
clueless. neither is strictly certain, but both are good enough for
real life.

th> But companies *do* have a corporate face to be presenting, and as such, I'd
th> say they do post messages

No, it's always a person, even in hiding, and IME people judge posting
that way.

th> if you'd ever posted using your `work' profile, you'd know the
th> same "how shall I best represent my company?" feeling.

I hard;ly ever use my company address and name for that reason, my
sins are my they belong to me (one for the wrinkleys:-)).

But you make my point. Someone who chooses to represetn their company
as `the kind of company which thinks Usenet is good for advertising'
is a plonker and the company is 99.99% likely to be worthless.

th> It's a question of approach.

And posting adverts is a silly approach.

th> Sometimes, it appears, people need to be shaken up a little and to
th> question their assumptions. *Especially* if they're going to force
th> those opinions on others.

It's hard to shake people loose from years of experience, because the
experience is probably right and the shaker probably baying at the moon. 

-- 
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk        _O_
                                                 |<

Quantcast