[Imc] Fwd: Re: posting at the U-C IMC

[Brian Hagy]

i would explain to him as kindly as possible what spamming is.  he might
not realize he's doing it.   i think asking him to post once a week falls
into his arguement of hindering speech (at least from his point of view).
so, maybe we should emphasize to him that we are a news resource, and that
if he thinks what he's offering is reporting on something that happened
(or even about to happen, thus accounting for religious possibilities),
then he should post it.  we don't yet have a column or opinion process
(though what's the diff between a column and a news story, i'm not sure).

i'm skeptical about saying having a link to a page that has stuff for sale
on it is automatically advertising.  i mean, The Nation has stuff for sale
on occassions, and Adbusters, and etc. etc.  i would argue that if in the
post it explicitly says something about either "buy this from me" or "you
can buy this on my website" (or anything within that framework), then
that's advertising (for commercial reasons, not advertising for
intellectual reasons, such as John Wason hinted at earlier).  Those posts
are the ones i thought we were targeting for hiding due to advertising,
not ones that have links to pages that have stuff to sell on them (unless
in the post it definitely references that fact that there are things to
buy on the web page).  i hope i'm being clear.  if not, ask and i'll see
if i can be more so.

brian



On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Paul Riismandel wrote:

> Since Mr. Larrabee did respond to us as we asked I would like us to at
> least consider his response.
>
> My position on this is that we should respond asking him to keep his posts
> to one a week or less, and omit any links to a page which offers things for
> sale and allow him to either accept or reject this.  If he accepts it
> explicitly then we'll see if he complies.  If he fails to respond, fails to
> respond directly (meaning, he responds with lots of flim-flam double-talk)
> or explicitly refuses then we should hide him in perpetuity.
>
> My guess is that he won't comply, but I could be wrong.  I was surprised
> that he responded at all, though his response does seem to indicate his
> failure to really understand what's going on.  Nonetheless, we owe it to
> ourselves to take this dialogue to its logical end, before deciding to hide
> all his posts.
>
> --Paul
>
> At 09:06 AM 12/10/2001 -0600, Mike Lehman wrote:
> >Just for the record, it was blatant advertising TWICE. He ALWAYS posts
> >the weblink to his homepage, which has the pitch for the book on it in
> >about four different places (not to mention the aggressive organ music
> >downloads.) And the postings are nearly daily. And while Paul
> >specifically addresses the spamming issue, he practically ignores it,
> >saying that we all should be glad to be spammed by him.
> >
> >I hid this morning's post from him.
> >Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> IMC mailing list
> IMC at urbana.indymedia.org
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/imc
>