dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (11/18/89)
In article <36577@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >Under the circumstances, it was the proper thing. If we allow one charity to >start fundraising on the network, you're opening up the doors for *every* >charity to spend the networks money pushing their causes. Oh my god! That was a close call, huh Chuq? Whew, to think we came *this* *close* (thumb and forefinger barely separated) to some sleaze bags taking advantage of *our* FLAMENET, er USENET, for their greedy, selfish agenda. Well, we can all heave a huge sigh of relief, folks, Super Chuq has saved the net! >The possibility of seeing a couple of hundred groups (no matter how >good the causes) posting on the network looking for bucks was enough >to scare me -- much as I like the Sierra Club or Amnesty >International, USENET is a place for information, not fundraising >drives. Right, USENET is a place for *information*, not information about needy causes and worthwhile charities. Enough flamage (sometimes there's just no such thing as enough flamage :-) I think charities and nonprofit organizations are at least as deserving of the right to use USENET as anyone, if not more so. Misc.headlines.unitex, though, is certainly not the right place for it. Recently, I brought up the topic of a newsgroup for just that purpose. All of the dozen or so replies I received were favorable, and if we could find a suitable moderator I think it'd pass. What's wrong with one more group Chuq? Especially one that could funnel some positive energy outside the net? >And the flames that this might cause are nothing to the flames that'd happen >when PBS starts running its auction over the net.... Which is about as likely as <Name for favorite hardware vendor> running their ads over the net... Oh, wait, that's right, I *have* seen ads on the net. Check out comp.newprod, not to mention various .signatures. Okay, then, it's about as likely as <Name your favorite software vendor> running customer support over the net... Oh, yeah, I've seen *that* too. Again, enough flamage. We *all* exploit the net, Chuq. It doesn't bother me in the least. In fact, I wouldn't be here if I couldn't get something out of it; and I suspect you'd be long gone, too. -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) (11/22/89)
Dave Sill writes: > Recently, I brought up the topic of a newsgroup for just that purpose. > All of the dozen or so replies I received were favorable, and if we > could find a suitable moderator I think it'd pass. What's wrong with > one more group Chuq? Especially one that could funnel some positive > energy outside the net? Putting all the solicitors in one newgroup would be like putting all the commercials on one channel on TV. No one would watch that channel and no one will read that newsgroup, at least not for long. Also, it could turn into quite a mess. Where do you draw the line? Do you allow religious or quasi-religious groups to canvass here? How abotu political or quasi-political organizations? Would the United Negro College Fund be OK? If so, why is it different from the solicitations for "JJ's College Fund" we saw a few years ago? Still, it could do some good in the world. I believe it's worth discussing. Draw up a proposal and issue a call for discussion.
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (11/23/89)
In article <1989Nov21.212300.19168@talos.uucp>, kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle Jones) writes: > Dave Sill writes: > > Recently, I brought up the topic of a newsgroup for just that purpose. > > All of the dozen or so replies I received were favorable, and if we > > could find a suitable moderator I think it'd pass. What's wrong with > > one more group Chuq? Especially one that could funnel some positive > > energy outside the net? > > Putting all the solicitors in one newgroup would be like putting all the > commercials on one channel on TV. No one would watch that channel and > no one will read that newsgroup, at least not for long. Did you know that West German TV, run by the Bundespost, runs commercials in two daily blocks? Wanna bet whether anybody watches them? I watched a tape of them once. They were quite entertaining, and were punctuated by short, amusing animated blurbs. Everyone bitches about commercials on TV because they're constantly interrupting what we're watching. Most people won't admit it, but they *do* rely on commercials as source of information; and I suspect a commercial-only channel could be quite successful. > Also, it could turn into quite a mess. Where do you draw the line? Do > you allow religious or quasi-religious groups to canvass here? How > about political or quasi-political organizations? Would the United > Negro College Fund be OK? First of all, it would have to be moderated. That would take care of frivolous or dubious causes. The moderator would have to be nonpartisan: not biased for or against any causes, even those he vehemently opposes. UNCF would be acceptable, as would Right to Life and Pro Choice. > If so, why is it different from the > solicitations for "JJ's College Fund" we saw a few years ago? One of the acceptance criteria would prevent self-serving pleas. > Still, it could do some good in the world. I believe it's worth discussing. > Draw up a proposal and issue a call for discussion. I already did, but since I can't moderate, and nobody else volunteered, it kind of went into limbo. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
brian@ucsd.Edu (Brian Kantor) (11/23/89)
Around here, net.solicitations (or sci.money, or whatever it gets called) would probably be aliased to /dev/null. One thing the university probably isn't is a shill.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (11/27/89)
In article <1989Nov22.172832.8413@relay.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > In article <1989Nov21.212300.19168@talos.uucp>, kjones@talos.uucp (Kyle > Jones) writes: > > > If so, why is it different from the > > solicitations for "JJ's College Fund" we saw a few years ago? > > One of the acceptance criteria would prevent self-serving pleas. > Could someone please provide a *rational* explanation of why it's OK to solicit funds for others, but not for one's self? Jeff Daiell Who has really long fingernails and sells groceries? Freddie Kroger! -- "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good ... Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood!" -- The Animals
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (11/28/89)
>Could someone please provide a *rational* explanation of why it's >OK to solicit funds for others, but not for one's self? > >Jeff Daiell No one said it was. What what was being discussed was people soliciting funds for identifiable causes with some breadth of interest as opposed to personal income causes. I assume the identifiable causes would be non-profit and tax-exempt, as one criteria, and be able to explain what they intend to do with those funds. It's not ok, for example, to solicit funds for your roommate and no one ever said it was (except perhaps you.) [DON'T START REPLYING YET -- KEEP READING] Don't reword the question into such generality that it appears absurd, that's a puerile trick. Yes, there are definite problems with deciding what a "worthwhile cause" is and that's perhaps worthy of discussion, but I'm not sure the fact that we can't nail down a definition is a priori a reason not to proceed, just a problem that might come up. So what? Life's not perfect and in the end individuals can filter the noise for themselves and gross abuses can be dealt with in the usual ways. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of the original proposal. For one thing, I suspect a fund-raising group will have enormous traffic and almost no readership. Just like the junk mail that lands in my paper mailbox daily. There's enormous motivation to post and post and post and almost no motivation to subscribe. People who wish to give usually find their channels easily enough. In short, I just don't think it will do anyone any good. It's the wrong medium, at least with junk mail you have to pick it up and throw it out and look at it to sort it out from your real mail (which is why they try to put some sort of grabber on the outside of the envelope.) In this medium if you ignore it it vaporizes all by itself. You don't even have to know it ever existed. If this group goes through I'd love to see some sort of sunset clause that if the readership::volume ratio gets too low it gets axed. Then again, that same rule would probably axe news.groups... -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs
gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek...) (11/29/89)
In article <10165@ucsd.Edu> brian@ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor) writes: >Around here, net.solicitations (or sci.money, or whatever it gets >called) would probably be aliased to /dev/null. > >One thing the university probably isn't is a shill. Oh? That wasn't the impression the last time I talked to the UCSD development office........ Point being is that universities are (sometimes!) more dignified about their begging and not that they don't do it or allow others to do it. -- Roger Tang, Member Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club American Flag Disposal Unit #3245, Chonk Moonhunters chapter gwangung@blake.acs.washington.edu