That may be their opinion.
Not everyone (including me) share that.
Sorry. That's not allowed. You (my attackers) must hold a single
coherent position and stick with it. Moving the goal posts in any of
our little conflicts is cheating. You forfeit. I win. Let's all go
discuss Java now.
But you are completely missing the point: there is a big difference in
unsolicited posts about site and referring to a site in a relevant
thread.
So spamming is okay, as long as it's somewhat targeted? Interesting,
but I doubt most of the internet would agree. The blog Freedom-to-
Tinker recently got a bunch of comment spams posted only to articles
to which they had some logical connection (e.g. a credit card related
spam to a post regarding online credit card number security and online
leaks of numbers). They didn't take kindly to this despite its being
"in a relevant thread". The moderator deleted the lot of them. There
was a big discussion about it afterward, with clear vehement dislike
of spammers showing through, regardless of how targeted their spew
might be in any given instance.
It follows from the above that referring to a site only in a relevant
thread is not sufficient to mean you're not doing something wrong.
And that making an entire post solely to refer someone to a commercial
site, providing nothing else in the way of relevant information other
than some site offering to sell that information, is suspicious
behavior, though maybe not ipso facto evil.
Also, regardless of the intent, there is the matter of the
consequences to the OP who may be misled into thinking the only option
they have is to fork over hard-earned cash to access information.
Add this to my generally finding trying to keep information from
people unless they pay you for it to be immoral and greedy. Anyone
posting exclusively links to pay sources of particular information is
clearly participating, whether consciously or not, in such
questionable behavior.
I find withholding anything from someone willing and able to pay the
marginal cost of providing it to them to be questionable, with rare
exceptions (e.g. nuclear weapons). In this case there are legal free
sources of information about Java concurrency and it was not until
after a few pay links that the OP heard of any of these free sources,
which is a situation likely to result in unnecessary costs for
someone. Causing such costs where they are avoidable is at best a form
of negligent behavior; at worst (given intent) borderline criminal.
Even if the causer doesn't gain financially themselves by doing so,
though especially if they do.
[calls me a liar]
Where the **** did that come from? Oh yeah, your generally hateful
nature and tendency to spew unprovoked insults at random. Of course.
What else could it be?
Hell, I didn't claim anything; I just suggested an analogy. If you
don't like it, it's probably because it comes close to an
uncomfortable truth.
Consider the parallels: Both have a student with evidence of shaky
finances, as is typical of students, with a question to answer.
(Student loan office? Evidence of shaky finances. First resort for
help is a usenet group full of assholes like you? Evidence of shaky
finances.) In both cases the first respondent suggests something that
will indirectly answer their question but it will cost them. In both
cases their question could be answered more directly and without
costing them, though they would still have the option to take the
expensive route if it were mentioned *additionally*.
Actually the one major failing is that the Mercedes scenario is less
nasty in one key respect: it's immediately obvious that the first
responder's suggestion will require paying money, rather than there
being a sort of bait-and-switch involved. What actually occurred was
basically
Q: Question?
A: URL!
Of course the URL could easily have led directly to an "Answer!". (In
this case, a section of Sun's Java Tutorial could have been linked
to.) Instead, the URL led to something akin to:
E-Mail Address: [ ] (will be verified)
Enter CC#: [ ] Visa MasterCard American Express
(*) Get valuable marketing offers from our marketing partners FREE!
( ) Get different valuable marketing offers from our other marketing
partners!
( ) I don't want to receive valuable marketing offers*
1 item: Answer Book - $49.99
[BUY NOW]
<font size=3>*we'll send you junk mail instead</font>
where we can be reasonably assured the book contains an "Answer!".
That analogy is bogus, because what was asked for and what was offered
was [sic] within the same topic.
No, *you* are bogus, because what was asked for (Java discussion) and
what was offered (insulting off-topic twaddle and other general-
purpose bullshit) "were" not within the same topic.
OP asks for info; gets directed to pay source with conspicuous lack of
mention of a free source I know exists.
OP asks for navigation directions; gets directed to a very expensive
source of same (Mercedes with GPS navigation console) instead of
simply given spoken or written directions or pointed to where maps of
the campus can be pulled from one of those ugly plastic racks of
pamphlets all institutional places have dispersed about.
Still undecided: whether there's any financial ties between the
original respondent and the car dealership...no real evidence either
way.
A better analogy would be that someone asked for suggestions for
a car and someone replied by telling about how great a car a
Mercedes is.
Completely valid answer.
Except that there aren't free cars. (At least not yet.)
Information on the other hand can be, wants to be, and frequently is
free.
Maybe instead someone asks for directions to the loan office and the
only replies they get are directions to the taxi stand, where there
are plenty of people willing to drive them to the loan office ... for
a fee.
Whatever.
In other words, I present a cogent and unassailable argument that you
cannot defeat by specifically addressing particular points with cogent
objections, so you resort to generally insulting it and engaging in /
ad hominem/ attacks.
1) Because the original poster may prefer some solution it
does not imply that it is mandatory on usenet.
Oh come off it! This is rather like a mechanic telling someone whose
left rear brake light needs a loose wire tightening that they should
also replace the transmission, for no good reason or at best on a
hunch, and moreover not fixing the wire. Hoping the guy gets worried
enough to replace the tranny, even if at some other mechanic, because
a rising tide floats all boats.
It's like trying to chat up one of those wieners on MSN or ICQ that
publicizes themselves as interested in online dating but responds to
every overture with the URL of some pay dating site instead of a
frigging conversation.
It's like asking some guy at the Future Shop to recommend a PC
configuration for particular purposes and he suggests the $1100 super-
deluxe souped up media center PC with a high end graphics card and all
the querent wanted was something capable of playing Minesweeper and
running Excel and Word.
It's like getting a circular in the mail offering a nifty new gizmo
"free after rebate", and when you get to the store they say they've
never heard of the rebate, or claim that the offer happens to have
expired exactly 17 minutes and 4 seconds before they walked in the
door, too bad so sad.
It's like doing a google search for "FooProd review" and getting
nothing but ad copy and sponsored results -- nary an independent
review in sight.
It's like those links you see on some web sites on random computer-
related words that don't link to anything relevant to the article you
are reading, but instead link to full-page ads trying to sell you
computer parts.
It's just rude and silly really. What objections do you, the Pitts,
and anyone else here have to posting a link to the Java Tutorial
whenever also recommending a pay source for Java related information?
Or even just mentioning in your post when you are recommending a pay
source and not a free one?
[insult deleted]
Die!
The original poster is much better off with a resource that
can help solve not only this problem but also the next ten
or hundrer problems within the domain.
That's for the original poster to decide, using other relevant
information as well that only he knows, such as what his budget is.
For the OP to make this decision in a way that is self-maximizing, he
needs all of the relevant facts. The existence of a free source of
relevant information is certainly one of those facts.
More generally though posting a pay source link unmarked is just plain
disrespectful. A large proportion of the people that see it simply
won't be interested if it costs money. A large proportion, and a set
overlapping with that first set, won't be able to buy it even if they
want to for one reason or another, depending on the vendor's policies
and on their own geographic location, finances, creditworthiness, and
other factors, or would have to pay prohibitive shipping fees, perhaps
even dominating the total cost to them of the transaction.
Have you tried counting how many people here that consider it common
sense and how many that does not consider it common sense ?
The silent majority is rather hard to count on usenet because being
silent makes you invisible here.
You are the only one who has this bizarre idea.
Incorrect. I am the only one being particularly vocal about it, for
some odd reason. Also I gave a bunch of references establishing that
this "bizarre idea" is actually commonplace and well-documented in
usenet's long and storied history. Postings that consist solely of
pointers to commercial sites have long been viewed with disdain
online.
I again ask you: What is your objection to
a) Disclosure when a link is not to the information requested
directly, whether because it "requires registration", or requires you
to buy access to the information, or whatever;
b) Disclosure when any such link will benefit you financially;
c) Disclosure of any cheaper and especially free alternatives you know
of for getting information that may satisfy the OP; and
d) Directly answering the OP's immediate question while you're at it.
Because frankly, I can't see any objections other than
i) "Because I don't feel like it" -> lame-o! and
ii) "Because I have a dishonest motive of some sort, or want to see
people waste money, or just like to help corporate greed whenever I
can" -> go **** yourself.
