Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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!]