Re: The PBM Report-Articles

From: jaede@acsu.buffalo.edu

Date: Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

KMGraphiks wrote:
>
> >It will be fun to see your editorial policy in regards to it, since
> >you have expressed a strong opinion on the thread.
> >
> >-- g
>
> Oh--boy,--that--will--be--fun <G>.
>
> Now, let's get crazy! I'll change that request to include one article for
> EACH side in the debate. I will print them together in The PBM Report.
> Any takers?
>
> Ken Mitchell
> The PBM Report

I'm afraid you will need to set aside room for a third column advancing
the position that this entire debate has been a colossal waste of time
generally characterized on all sides by a debating style reminiscent of
a dispute among fourth grade boys.

I truly wish there were some way we could come to an agreement that:

(a) Greg Lindahl is not a god, but he is delivering a genuine service in
his FAQ and PBM list and in his efforts to keep this group true to the
non-commercial principles of Usenet;

(b) Most of the PBM companies who have discussed their wish to expand
their level of communication -- and who have in fact posted some form of
ads -- have exercised considerable restraint, especially when compared
with the true slimeballs who spam this group with crap ranging from
Ponzi scams to the recent "auction" of "Magic" rubbish;

(d) Some readers want more ads, some want none, and there is no way we
are going to find out what a majority want, since we couldn't even
figure out what a majority would be.

There it is -- my attempt to call for an armistice.  But I suppose I
have only added to the general waste.

Mark Jaede

References

Re: The PBM Report-Articles
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The PBM Report-Articles
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: The PBM Report-Articles
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The PBM Report-Articles
kmgraphiks@aol.com (KMGraphiks)
Sun, 22 Jun 1997 00:00:00 +0000