>>>>>> First of all, if I am out of line with this newsgroup in reference to >>>>>> this notice, I do apologize. I am new to this newsgroup, so am not >>>>>> sure if I am overstepping my bounds.
>>>>> You should have asked first without posting the links to your >>>>> business.
>>>> Why?
>>> He posted a blatant advert for his site. This is against the charter of >>> this group. Pre-wrapping it with an apology is a cheap tactic.
>> Please answer the rest of my question. It is an integral part of the >> "why."
> I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. That's > against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked first, but > that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions.
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:11:12 -0500, Alan Browne >>I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. >>That's against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked >>first, but that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions. > What product was advertised?
You should have looked at the website advertised, it's quite obvious.
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:24:28 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:11:12 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. >>>That's against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked >>>first, but that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions.
>> What product was advertised?
>You should have looked at the website advertised, it's quite >obvious.
I did. He's not trying to sell anything to this group. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:xBoaWjAD4T9KFA9A@p >haedsys.demon.co.uk... >> In message <o-CdnbPcvc6tLmnXnZ2dnUVZ_oydn...@earthlink.com>, John Sisker >> <jsis...@sprynet.com> writes >>>I am quite aware that my website is not the high caliber design that >>>some seemingly expected to see, but it is designed for a specific >>>purpose and market in mind, and does fit that bill quite nicely. >>>However, it is very obvious that for the most part, some on this >>>particular newsgroup do not possess the wherewithal to express >>>themselves with any degree of professionalism, even though they no- >>>doubt think they are, thus totally undermining those who could add some >>>value to the dialogue. Thanks, but no thanks, for I know good answers >>>can be found elsewhere.
>>>John
>> I think you have hit the nail on the head. There are far to many with >> low social skills on Usenet these days.
>Methinks those skills would improve if there was less anonymity.
I agree. Most of those behaving like children invariably do so from behind fake ID's and email addresses.
Having used the same email real address around here for the last 20 years I can't see the problem. I don't get much spam/junk email (less than most people AFAICS) I don't get lots of personal abusive emails I don't get people turning up at the house or business. I think fake email addresses should be banned.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:24:28 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:11:12 -0500, Alan Browne >>>>I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. >>>>That's against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked >>>>first, but that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions. >>> What product was advertised? >>You should have looked at the website advertised, it's quite >>obvious. > I did. He's not trying to sell anything to this group.
I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services.
<ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:24:28 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>>tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:11:12 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>>>I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. >>>>>That's against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked >>>>>first, but that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions.
>>>> What product was advertised?
>>>You should have looked at the website advertised, it's quite >>>obvious.
>> I did. He's not trying to sell anything to this group.
>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services.
Sure. The intent of posting that link was to get us to fly to Huntington Beach, California for a studio shot.
>tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:24:28 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>>tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 09:11:12 -0500, Alan Browne
>>>>>I really have nothing to answer to you. The OP posted an advert. >>>>>That's against the charter. Out of politeness he could have asked >>>>>first, but that would have been inconvenient to his real intentions.
>>>> What product was advertised?
>>>You should have looked at the website advertised, it's quite >>>obvious.
>> I did. He's not trying to sell anything to this group.
>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services.
Sell to who? This is a photographers news group. He is not likely to sell his services to anyone here. His market is a to non-photographers in his geographical location. I suspect the only people from his location on this NG is himself.
All I saw was someone wanting feedback from fellow photographers on his web site. Much the same as we ask for feedback on pictures.
-- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote: > In message <ub8ks6-k0r....@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang >>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services. > Sell to who?
To any takers.
> This is a photographers news group. He is not likely to > sell his services to anyone here.
You photograph yourself for portraits, photograph your own wedding and so on and so on?
> His market is a to non-photographers
Nope.
> in his geographical location.
Maybe.
> I suspect the only people from his > location on this NG is himself.
So ads are allowed if you suspect no takers?
> All I saw was someone wanting feedback from fellow photographers on his > web site. Much the same as we ask for feedback on pictures.
"Check it out" doesn't sound like "Could you please give me feedback on ...". And he didn't get feedback on the web site and/or pictures. Which should be a pretty strong hint that only you read it that way.
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:37:34 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg >>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services. > Sure. The intent of posting that link was to get us to fly to > Huntington Beach, California for a studio shot.
Surely he should make sure only Huntington Beach, California residents can view his website then. Right?
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:04:42 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote: >Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote: >> In message <ub8ks6-k0r....@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
>>>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services.
>> Sell to who?
>To any takers.
>> This is a photographers news group. He is not likely to >> sell his services to anyone here.
>You photograph yourself for portraits, photograph your own >wedding and so on and so on?
The guy's a local photographer. Dumb as some posters can be, they realize that posting to a group that is read around the world is not going to result in any studio business for them.
>> All I saw was someone wanting feedback from fellow photographers on his >> web site. Much the same as we ask for feedback on pictures.
>"Check it out" doesn't sound like "Could you please give me >feedback on ...". And he didn't get feedback on the web site >and/or pictures. Which should be a pretty strong hint that >only you read it that way.
Then his error was in his phrasing, not in his intent in posting.
Several people, myself included, commented on the design of the website. The comments were not kind.
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:04:42 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg > <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote: >>> In message <ub8ks6-k0r....@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>, Wolfgang
>>>>I did, too --- it's obvious that the OP wants to sell his services.
>>> Sell to who?
>>To any takers.
>>> This is a photographers news group. He is not likely to >>> sell his services to anyone here.
>>You photograph yourself for portraits, photograph your own >>wedding and so on and so on?
> The guy's a local photographer. Dumb as some posters can be, they > realize that posting to a group that is read around the world is not > going to result in any studio business for them.
>>> All I saw was someone wanting feedback from fellow photographers on his >>> web site. Much the same as we ask for feedback on pictures.
>>"Check it out" doesn't sound like "Could you please give me >>feedback on ...". And he didn't get feedback on the web site >>and/or pictures. Which should be a pretty strong hint that >>only you read it that way.
> Then his error was in his phrasing, not in his intent in posting.
> Several people, myself included, commented on the design of the > website. The comments were not kind.
Sadly, some confused a request for instructive criticism, with license to trash and use foul longuage..
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: > The guy's a local photographer. Dumb as some posters can be, they > realize that posting to a group that is read around the world is not > going to result in any studio business for them.
It's not required for an ad to be successful for it to be disallowed here. (Spamming response rates are similarly absymal. Is thus spamming this group OK?)
>>"Check it out" doesn't sound like "Could you please give me >>feedback on ...". > Then his error was in his phrasing, not in his intent in posting.
Ah, you are a mind reader to *know* his intent with perfect clarity?
> Several people, myself included, commented on the design of the > website. The comments were not kind.
Website design is, to my knowledge, not exactly on topic in alt.photography --- hence one must assume that was a way of telling the ad poster "You didn't even manage to produce a usable ad, go away!"
> tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>"Check it out" doesn't sound like "Could you please give me >>>feedback on ...".
>> Then his error was in his phrasing, not in his intent in posting.
> Ah, you are a mind reader to *know* his intent with perfect > clarity?
>> Several people, myself included, commented on the design of the >> website. The comments were not kind.
> Website design is, to my knowledge, not exactly on topic in > alt.photography --- hence one must assume that was a way of telling > the ad poster "You didn't even manage to produce a usable ad, > go away!"
> Website design is, to my knowledge, not exactly on topic in > alt.photography --- hence one must assume that was a way of telling > the ad poster "You didn't even manage to produce a usable ad, > go away!"
|
