Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/15

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: [NO Leica] Legal Links, Apology, Anus
From: Paul Schiemer <pschiemer@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 12:32:40 -0500

Trying to make a couple netiquite points I inadvertently stirred some
pyrotechnic jelly into the mix.  Curious how some folks deal with a bit
of controversy.

As for being called an asshole, no problem. I've heard worse. Just
seemed out of place here- as most contributors are more eloquent and
articulate.  [that 'asshole' thing and then "you don't know what 'civil
discourse' is all about!" in the same sentence, what a LAUGH!!]  
I was being civil.

T.Manley posts the 'legal' message here after creating quite a ruckus
over on PhotoPro.
[You have seen this, right??  what a mess!]
Okay fine, Lugites are considered friends and family, BUT....

...why does she post the exact URL of the offending web site to us??

Click throughs create traffic.  These perv sites rely on 'click
throughs' to survive.  [The way it works is somebody PAYS them for each
'hit' they get, and pay again for each click through to other sites from
theirs.  BTW, any commercially produced web site has a counter,
somewhere.]
And it worked more than once too, ie; <<I followed the link with some
trepidation and after looking for 5 minutes....>>

[Try typing that specific URL, it's NOT easy; and some mail programs
require TWO steps to have it highlighted in the body of a message for an
actual click through (embedding the HTML code separately).]

Now, with all the <s>niping and <c>lipping, in todays digest there are
no less than EIGHTEEN click throughs to the offending site.
She has promulgated the increase in traffic at the offending site,
unwittingly perhaps.  
I'd prefer to think it was a mistake, and the sequence was just one of
those coincidental things that happen.  I merely raised the question of
propriety.

Bottom line;  Manley will have to do something to her site to prevent
the link from the offending URL to hers.  She’s had LOTS of suggestions
from the thread on PhotoPro, and now here.  Let’s just drop it.

That anyone believes my post was 'miserable behavior', 'grossly
offensive', or 'sermonizing' (?) I'm actually surprised.  Perhaps they
read my post, clicked through for a quick look see at the offending URL,
and their resultant offensive messages about my post was in proportional
response to the nastiness of what they saw?  A knee/jerk thing.

Oh yeah, this marks the END OF DISCUSSION (on my part).  Leave it go, no
harm done.
Now we can get back to the real meat of the NG, eh?  Technical,
aesthetic, and off topic.
[Let us maintain vigilance on our clipping techniques too!]