|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
One day a month sounds like a good idea. I second your motion.
<p>James & April Knox wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>First, let me be clear about something, I am not
siding "for" or "against" Norman Winski. I am not a student of his.
I am not a friend of a friend. I am simply offering a possible solution,
that may be more effective than the protocol that is currently in place.
To get quickly to the point, maybe a <u>Single Day</u> could be selected
where forum contributors were allowed to say, "Hey, it's me and I offer
services for sale etc. etc. etc." Before you quickly hit the delete
key, let me say that this issue is not going to go away. It really
does not do any good to punish Norm, if the intent is to resolve this very
long on-going problem. I know you don't want to operate a Spam Site,
and believe me, most of us don't want a Spam site. But is this "No
Ad Policy" really working? Somebody slips something in all of the
time, which of course divides the group into camps. This puts the
forum moderators in an awkward position. Sometimes the solution to
ban a first time offender is easy. Sometimes the enforcement of a
repeated offender is more delicate. At no time has the rule been
completely effective. I know that I am not running this site, or
paying for it's operation. So, I am not grinding an ax.
I am simply offering the suggestion to re-think the taboo of this "No Ad
Policy." There are many many people on this list with something to
sell. If you selected <u>One Day A Month</u>, you could give yourself
breathing room for aggressive enforcement of a policy that is difficult
at best to enforce. Maybe you could qualify them, or have them earn
advertisement credits. Maybe you could charge them $5. Maybe
one day a month would satisfy the need to say ... "Please think of me if
you are going to pay for something." Does this open a can of worms?
The can is already open.
<br>Pretending we don't have a problem, only allows it to get worse.
This week it is Norm, tomorrow it will be someone else, and we will rehash
this entire topic with 50 more e-mails. What is the difference ...
deleting 50 ads or deleting 50 objection posts? In the end, most
of who have been here for a while, figure out who is selling what.
Most of us have privately contacted a member of this forum regarding their
knowledge or services. I know that I have. If you create the
"senior skip day," you provide an outlet and a more manageable policy.
I do not have anything to sell, and this is not a self-promoting post.
Take this post for what it is ... a possible solution. I would hope
that we all think on creating a solution, instead of destroying each other
in the process. I wish the Forum Moderators, Norm, the yeas and the
nays ... the very best.</blockquote>
</html>
</x-html>From ???@??? Sun Jan 23 13:22:17 2000
Return-Path: <listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from mail.thetrellis.net ([208.179.56.11])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA19745
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 14:07:33 -0800
Received: from REALTRADERS.COM
([208.179.56.198])
by mail.thetrellis.net; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:01:44 -0800
Received: from mta4.snfc21.pbi.net by realtraders.com
with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.8.5.0.R)
for <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:56:10 +0000
Received: from pacbell.net ([207.214.213.105])
by mta4.snfc21.pbi.net (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.09.16.21.57.p8)
with ESMTP id <0FOT00GTC3LMKC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> for
realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:58:36 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 13:02:42 -0800
From: Andre Franklin <andref@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] Speaking English and Understanding the Rules
To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-id: <388B6C72.31A28803@xxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-PBI-NC404 (Win95; U)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Return-Path: andref@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDMailing-List: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-MDSend-Notifications-To: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-To: andref@xxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
Gram,
My post was not intended to address your posted message...especially the
"English" references. Maybe I could use a couple of English lessons
myself because my intentions in those statements could have been stated
more clearly. For this...I apologize.
What I was trying to imply in the "English" paragraph is that Norman
found me hypocritical for using my URL in posts AFTER I had clearly
explained to him IN PLAIN ENGLISH that the rules allow this!!! In this
case, Norman either doesn't understand English...or...has been smoking
something. I apologize if some RT'ers took this as an attack on those
that differ on the importance of this thread, or, those that take a
position different than my own.
Gary (another RT'er) addressed me privately about being insensitive to
those that speak English as a second language. There was no such intent
to belittle non-English speakers in my statements. The reality, however,
is that the RT forum is an English forum. It's rules are in English
only. Participants are required to understand the language to
effectively participate. Those with English as a second language do not
expect RT posts to be in their first language, nor do they expect the
rules to be provided to them in their native tongue to insure
understanding...as long as RT is an English forum that is.
The "English" point I was trying to make is that there are two "excuses"
for not
understanding the RT rules (disagreeing with the rules or the importance
of a given thread is a different matter):
1. No understanding of the language
2. Being under the influence of something that alters ones' judgment
These are statements of fact...and I do not think this implies any
negative connotation to other languages...nor was their any intent to
imply such a thing.
_________________________________________
Subject:
[RT] R: Re: Norm, ads are not allowed on RT
From: "Gram" <gramario@xxxxxx>
>Dear Andre,
>Although I am unbiased as to this thread; I merely expressed an opinion
>based on what surely must be self-evident facts. I appreciate that you do
>not wish to
>"enter into an ongoing "Cowan-Stewart" style discussion that may not
benefit
>most members", however your blithe comment: "I guess those that do not
>understand English...", preceded by, "I must take issue with those that say
>there is too much emphasis on this thread", would seem to bring things
>rather onto a personal level.
> Am I consider myself (as well as Norman) the recipient of this
missive?
> If so, would you kindly point out what you saw in my post which
>suggested that I do not know English.
>
>With apologies to our star-gazing luminary,
>
>Yours equipoisingly,
>
>Gram.
|