werner@utastro.UUCP (Werner Uhrig) (05/01/88)
given that this Cheeser-fellow, did not heed the first few voices questioning his misplaced advertising and repeated his posting, and given that he seems to be employed by The Source, I have no alternative but to come to a pretty low opinion of both him and The Source; I would not be surprised if he'd actually benefit from new sign-ups and the volume of traffic in his group there, and/or that he's doing so badly that he is desperate enough to post to USENET - not a likely forum for recruiting people to join a pay-as-you-go online service. If anyone should even mention The Source around me, I'll certainly volunteer that I'd prefer joining Delphi anyday ... with the contribution Jeff Shulman has made to USENET with his Delphi-digests and submissions of programs, they don't need to make "special offers". Thanks, Jeff! ---Werner PS: The article in the most recent MACazine doesn't even mention The Source ...
chuq@plaid.Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (05/02/88)
>PS: The article in the most recent MACazine doesn't even mention The Source ...
The latest issue of Macintosh Horizons did a cover story on timesharing
services as well, and the Source wasn't mentioned there, either. USENET was,
though.
chuq (I should know, I was a co-author... Guess who wrote the USENET part?)
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
This signature is currently under construction.
We are sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (Les Kay) (05/03/88)
In article <51471@sun.uucp> chuq@sun.UUCP (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>PS: The article in the most recent MACazine doesn't even mention The Source ... > >The latest issue of Macintosh Horizons did a cover story on timesharing >services as well, and the Source wasn't mentioned there, either. USENET was, >though. Well, as Bob LeVitus now has an account, that will probably change. (Or he soon will have, US Mail, don't you know.) As I said in an earlier note, to those few that have stated that they were offended, my apologies, it was not my intent to offend anyone. To the many that have sent thanks, you are welcome! To the others that have not voiced an opinion one way or the other, my apologies that this has taken up your bandwidth, these messages really should have gone through mail. But I'd rather meet public attacks in public. Gentleman, I have enriched some, offended others. I have apologised to those I have offended. Can we let this drop? Les -- =============================================================================== Jonathan Bing, Master (cheeser) ...ihnp4!hoptoad!dasys1!cheeser Pereant, iniquit, qui ante nos nostra dixerunt! cheeser@pro-charlotte.CTS.COM Non illegitimus carborundum! ...ihnp4!chinet!cheeser
mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON) (05/04/88)
In article <4245@dasys1.UUCP>, cheeser@dasys1.UUCP (Les Kay) writes: > > Gentleman, I have enriched some, offended others. I have apologised to those > I have offended. Can we let this drop? > Please realize that it is not just a matter of offending or pleasing anyone -- many newsgroups seem to exist solely for the purpose of offending the maximum number of people. Please take VERY seriously the recent note about underlying costs (both economic and social) for what is TO YOU a free service. You pled ignorance (re: existence of the new products news group); this is a totally inadequate excuse -- anyone with access to the net has a responsibility to EXPLORE the bloody thing -- in which case you will see the new users groups and read their announcements (continually reposted and updated) about net etiquette and about what the offerings are and how to use them. Besides, all self respecting hacker types [and BBS types] must surely pride themselves on having cased the system. You are not (now) being flamed. We spell this out as a guide to your future behavior and to warn other newcomers who may be misled by your example. -- Michael L. Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!mhuxu!mls standard disclaimer