dfw.forsale.ebay group???

[al]

This has been discussed ad nauseum in the following links... please read
some before taking the path all before have failed.

http://www.google.com/groups?as_q=eBay&safe=images&as_ugroup=dfw.usenet.config&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1999&as_maxd=18&as_maxm=10&as_maxy=2003&lr=lang_en&num=100&hl=en

Hey Chris, Nigel, et al....
Would you be supportive of a dfw.ebay or dfw.forsale.ebay newsgroup
for those of us who prefer to list on eBay rather than sell? And
give people a chance to see what other DFW based people are
selling/auctioning.
If so, I'd be willing to start the ball rolling on that.

Well, there is much more to the process than this, and the discussion
belongs in dfw.usenet.config.

Ultimately, this group isn't moderated and I will continue to post
what I have listed on eBay here. Out of courtesy, I will always
place "FA:" at the beginning of my posts.
If you don't want to see the FA post then filter them, or me out in
your newsreader. *OR* get the group changed to moderated and be one
of the moderators.

Actually they do mean ebay. It was discussed extensively in here
before and
the concensus was that ebay ads were not allowed. Google some of the
discussions and I think the news czar for the group even weighed in
on the
subject as they know better than anyone else what the intention of the
charter was.

As someone else has already pointed out, auctions are OK provided I
place
"FA" in the subject. As for those who like the throw out the
"Links to
Commercial Auction sites are not permitted." argument, I think they
mean
places like Sotheby's & Christie's who sell on someone else's
behalf, not
direct sellers on eBay. If you don't want to see FA items, then I

suggest

you filter your newsreader to remove anything with "FA" in the
subject.
I stopped "selling" my items in this group for reasons similar to
what we
have here...
a. Price policing idiots.
b. Ridiculous and offensive counter offers.
c. Whiney, crying titty-baby, shut-in losers who troll this group
while

the

other 75-90% of us are here to buy & sell.
d. "I'll buy it!! I'll buy it!!", and then never show up to get
it PITA
buyers.
e. Wasting my time with "Can I come look at it?" crap on a $10

motherboard.

eBay eliminates most of these problems for me, and I get much wider
exposure. As a buyer, you get to decide EXACTLY what you're
willing to

pay

for said item, then you'll either win or lose.
http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQgotopageZ1QQsassZdouglasQ2dmasters
Doug Masters in Plano, TX Proud & honest enough to not hide
behind a
"handle" and fake email address.

I thought this was a "FOR SALE" News group
Not a "FOR AUCTION" Newsgroup

http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQgotopageZ1QQsassZdouglasQ2dmasters
Lots of misc. computer crap, networking equipment, phones, etc..
Live in Plano near & Park & Preston, work in Dallas near 635 &
Tollway
(Galleria)

[Nigel Reed]

Post by al
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the following links... please read
some before taking the path all before have failed.

I don't see a need for another group, personally. If someone wants to
list their items on Ebay, that is fine. Ebay has a very good search
facility to help people find what they may want to buy.

The nature of Ebay sales means that the seller is happy to ship the item
they're selling which therefore widens the appeal beyond DFW. Maybe
that's being a bit petty though.

Regards
Nigel

[al]

Post by Nigel Reed

Post by al
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the following links... please read
some before taking the path all before have failed.

I don't see a need for another group, personally. If someone wants to
list their items on Ebay, that is fine. Ebay has a very good search
facility to help people find what they may want to buy.
The nature of Ebay sales means that the seller is happy to ship the item
they're selling which therefore widens the appeal beyond DFW. Maybe
that's being a bit petty though.
Regards
Nigel

Well, you might be able to tell I have been down this road before. Here
was MY experience.

I was selling my Rolex (Carpal Tunnel), so I wanted to get the widest
exposure possible, but strongly preferred a local sale (due to the
"variables" of this type sale). I listed the watch (with box, papers,
proof of origin, etc.) on Ebay, then set a link to Ebay in a dfw.forsale
posting. When someone is paying $1000 cash, sight unseen, for an item,
it is really hard, even for a reputable "name" dealer, even with
impeccable feedback (there are a number of eBay scams). Sometimes there
is simply NO <good> substitute for a hand to hand transaction. needless
to say, all hell broke lose with the charter cops, the self anointed
usenet.config'ers, and my ISP. Oops, my bad.

There is a root issue with the actual underlying funding / subsidy of
the Usenet hierarchy that forbids the "commercialization" of Usenet as a
pseudo publicly owned resource - similar to broadcasting in the
commercial bandwidth spectrum. Needless to say, Ebay now agrees, and
forbids Usenet links into Ebay, and WILL help enforce this. As currently
defined, a link to a commercial site is absolutely, unequivocally,
indisputably verboten. Written in stone, deeper than the sea.

Further, the Usenet brain trust would as soon pull the existence of the
entire dfw.* hierarchy than allow any segment to be commercialized
(jeopardizing funding/subsidy or just not worth the hassle?). THAT is a
real enforceable action.

Finally, this is easily worked around - just list your eBay ID, or list
the item #, but DO NOT include a link. That way, all but the laziest or
most inept users would be able to find the referenced item.

Regardless of the cost in human turmoil, there has been NO movement on
this issue since I first encountered it in 1999 (or so), and it bubbles
to the surface with an alarming regularity. Technology has arguably
outgrown this arcane notion of publicly owned resource, but, to date,
the root cause has not been identified, nor anything close to addressed.
It will take a heck of a lot more than a group charter amendment (note:
AGAINST the Usenet "Constitution", thus requiring a higher level
amendment) to properly address this issue.

Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

al

[Bob Peterson]

Post by al

Post by Nigel Reed

Post by al
This has been discussed ad nauseum in the following links... please read
some before taking the path all before have failed.

I don't see a need for another group, personally. If someone wants to
list their items on Ebay, that is fine. Ebay has a very good search
facility to help people find what they may want to buy.
The nature of Ebay sales means that the seller is happy to ship the item
they're selling which therefore widens the appeal beyond DFW. Maybe
that's being a bit petty though.
Regards
Nigel

Well, you might be able to tell I have been down this road before. Here
was MY experience.
...
There is a root issue with the actual underlying funding / subsidy of
the Usenet hierarchy that forbids the "commercialization" of Usenet as a
pseudo publicly owned resource - similar to broadcasting in the
commercial bandwidth spectrum. ...

No, the above is not correct. The noncommercialization constraints
imposed on ARPANet and by the National Science Foundation on the
networks NSF funded, e.g., CSNet, disappeared many years ago. My
recollection is, quite simply, that the private owners and operators
of the machines hosting dfw.* newsgroups decline to allow their
resources (equipment, bandwidth, and personnel) to be used to support
and promote others' businesses.

Post by al
Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

Use Google to review the charter discussions in 1999 through 2000, and
you'll find exactly the guidance you seek. The hardy individuals
working to achieve a charter did, indeed, discuss this issue with the
relevant Usenet admins, passed along the results of those discussions,
which resulted in the current charter. And, in a few cases, the News
Czar confirmed the sense of those discussions.

Post by al
al

Bob

[al]

Post by Bob Peterson

Post by al
There is a root issue with the actual underlying funding / subsidy of
the Usenet hierarchy that forbids the "commercialization" of Usenet as a
pseudo publicly owned resource - similar to broadcasting in the
commercial bandwidth spectrum. ...

No, the above is not correct. The noncommercialization constraints
imposed on ARPANet and by the National Science Foundation on the
networks NSF funded, e.g., CSNet, disappeared many years ago. My
recollection is, quite simply, that the private owners and operators
of the machines hosting dfw.* newsgroups decline to allow their
resources (equipment, bandwidth, and personnel) to be used to support
and promote others' businesses.

Post by al
Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

Use Google to review the charter discussions in 1999 through 2000, and
you'll find exactly the guidance you seek. The hardy individuals
working to achieve a charter did, indeed, discuss this issue with the
relevant Usenet admins, passed along the results of those discussions,
which resulted in the current charter. And, in a few cases, the News
Czar confirmed the sense of those discussions.

Post by al
al

Bob

Thanks for refreshing my poor memory. :-)

[al]

Post by Bob Peterson
No, the above is not correct. The noncommercialization constraints
imposed on ARPANet and by the National Science Foundation on the
networks NSF funded, e.g., CSNet, disappeared many years ago. My
recollection is, quite simply, that the private owners and operators
of the machines hosting dfw.* newsgroups decline to allow their
resources (equipment, bandwidth, and personnel) to be used to support
and promote others' businesses.

Post by al
Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

Use Google to review the charter discussions in 1999 through 2000, and
you'll find exactly the guidance you seek. The hardy individuals
working to achieve a charter did, indeed, discuss this issue with the
relevant Usenet admins, passed along the results of those discussions,
which resulted in the current charter. And, in a few cases, the News
Czar confirmed the sense of those discussions.

Bob
So, the only possible solution is to transfer the dfw.* hierarchy, or at
least the dfw.forsale NG to a different server? Can a new group be
created, such as dfw1.* (including dfw1.forsale), on a different server,
that COULD adopt the allowance of commercial posting?

Just wondering what the solution to the dilemna is, regardless of
whether the objective is ever realized.

[Bob Peterson]

Post by al

Post by Bob Peterson

Post by al
Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

Use Google to review the charter discussions in 1999 through 2000, and
you'll find exactly the guidance you seek. The hardy individuals
working to achieve a charter did, indeed, discuss this issue with the
relevant Usenet admins, passed along the results of those discussions,
which resulted in the current charter. And, in a few cases, the News
Czar confirmed the sense of those discussions.

Bob
So, the only possible solution is to transfer the dfw.* hierarchy, or at
least the dfw.forsale NG to a different server? Can a new group be
created, such as dfw1.* (including dfw1.forsale), on a different server,
that COULD adopt the allowance of commercial posting?
Just wondering what the solution to the dilemna is, regardless of
whether the objective is ever realized.

Unlike a Web-based discussion group, newsgroups exist on many servers.
Each server passes and receives articles to/from its neighbors. "Big
8" newsgroups, e.g., comp.dcom.telecom, exist on many thousands of
servers worldwide. Regional newsgroups, such as dfw.forsale, probably
exist on around 100 servers, including the machines run by large news
services such as Giganews, and machines as small as an individual's
Linux box. At one time I ran a mail and news server at home on a
machine running MS-DOS.

Because of the multimachine, distributed nature of newsgroup servers,
transferring a collection of newsgroup from "the server" to "another
server" does not make sense.

The collection of news server administrators whose resources provide
much of the support for the dfw.* newsgroups urged the creation of
charters for dfw.* newsgroups. At the time, lack of charters had
resulted in the dfw.* newsgroups becoming less and less useful. As
the news server administrators, they have the power to create and
delete dfw.* newsgroups. They used that power to ensure the charters
met their minimum requirements.

There is an underlying assumption made by everyone who asks that
commercial posts, auction links, etc., be allowed in dfw.forsale: The
proposer assumes that the nature of dfw.forsale will not change as a
result of the requested charter change. People post articles to
dfw.forsale because numerous buyers read dfw.forsale. Buyers read
dfw.forsale, IMNHO, because the current dfw.forsale connects buyers to
sellers without the buyer having to sort through lots of uninteresting
articles. I believe a charter change to allow commercial postings or
EBay postings or postings from anywhere in the world would materially
change the nature of dfw.forsale in a manner that would drive away
many current readers, thus reducing the usefulness of dfw.forsale.

You see a dilemna. I strongly suspect the dfw.* news administrators
do not. Various attempts to create an alternative to dfw.forsale,
e.g., to create a Web-based for sale group for North Texas, have all
failed to replace dfw.forsale.

Bob

[al]

Post by Bob Peterson

Post by al

Post by Bob Peterson

Post by al
Now, if only the Usenet News Czar would descend <a RARE occurrence
indeed> to give us guidance where / how this could, finally, once and
freaking for all, be addressed....

Use Google to review the charter discussions in 1999 through 2000, and
you'll find exactly the guidance you seek. The hardy individuals
working to achieve a charter did, indeed, discuss this issue with the
relevant Usenet admins, passed along the results of those discussions,
which resulted in the current charter. And, in a few cases, the News
Czar confirmed the sense of those discussions.

Bob
So, the only possible solution is to transfer the dfw.* hierarchy, or at
least the dfw.forsale NG to a different server? Can a new group be
created, such as dfw1.* (including dfw1.forsale), on a different server,
that COULD adopt the allowance of commercial posting?
Just wondering what the solution to the dilemna is, regardless of
whether the objective is ever realized.

Unlike a Web-based discussion group, newsgroups exist on many servers.
Each server passes and receives articles to/from its neighbors. "Big
8" newsgroups, e.g., comp.dcom.telecom, exist on many thousands of
servers worldwide. Regional newsgroups, such as dfw.forsale, probably
exist on around 100 servers, including the machines run by large news
services such as Giganews, and machines as small as an individual's
Linux box. At one time I ran a mail and news server at home on a
machine running MS-DOS.
Because of the multimachine, distributed nature of newsgroup servers,
transferring a collection of newsgroup from "the server" to "another
server" does not make sense.
The collection of news server administrators whose resources provide
much of the support for the dfw.* newsgroups urged the creation of
charters for dfw.* newsgroups. At the time, lack of charters had
resulted in the dfw.* newsgroups becoming less and less useful. As
the news server administrators, they have the power to create and
delete dfw.* newsgroups. They used that power to ensure the charters
met their minimum requirements.
There is an underlying assumption made by everyone who asks that
commercial posts, auction links, etc., be allowed in dfw.forsale: The
proposer assumes that the nature of dfw.forsale will not change as a
result of the requested charter change. People post articles to
dfw.forsale because numerous buyers read dfw.forsale. Buyers read
dfw.forsale, IMNHO, because the current dfw.forsale connects buyers to
sellers without the buyer having to sort through lots of uninteresting
articles. I believe a charter change to allow commercial postings or
EBay postings or postings from anywhere in the world would materially
change the nature of dfw.forsale in a manner that would drive away
many current readers, thus reducing the usefulness of dfw.forsale.
You see a dilemna. I strongly suspect the dfw.* news administrators
do not. Various attempts to create an alternative to dfw.forsale,
e.g., to create a Web-based for sale group for North Texas, have all
failed to replace dfw.forsale.
Bob

Yes, I have watched every attempt, and still wonder at "How?".

Even the dfw.auction idea failed, but we continue to knash at each other
(figuratively, of course, and not literally you and I) about this ONE
issue. Now, other varieties of commercial posters are ruthlessly stomped
out to protect the "value" of the NG, but only this issue keeps
otherwise rational folks stirred up.

Just documenting this issue for those who still wish to pursue it, as
there are always those who jump up out of the foxhole, without knowing,
with certainty, they will take one between the eyes.

[Nigel Reed]

Post by al
Even the dfw.auction idea failed, but we continue to knash at each other
(figuratively, of course, and not literally you and I) about this ONE
issue. Now, other varieties of commercial posters are ruthlessly stomped
out to protect the "value" of the NG, but only this issue keeps
otherwise rational folks stirred up.

I don't know why they should be stirred up. It's pretty clear in the
charter.

"Local Auction announcements only for the dfw Area. Items available at an
Auction, or Auction announcements. Links to Commercial Auction sites are
not permitted. No Public Auctions shall be held in this newsgroup. "

As I would read it, it means an auction physically held in the DFW area.
A link to a commercial auction site (such as ebay, Yahoo Stores or
whatever) should not be permitted.

Post by al
Just documenting this issue for those who still wish to pursue it, as
there are always those who jump up out of the foxhole, without knowing,
with certainty, they will take one between the eyes.

Maybe we're approaching this the wrong way. RFD on making dfw.forsale
moderated? :)

Regards
Nigel

[L. Maurer]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:10:02 GMT, Nigel Reed

Post by Nigel Reed
Maybe we're approaching this the wrong way. RFD on making dfw.forsale
moderated? :)

ACK! Who's going to moderate it? We've got enough loony tunes on
UseNet now without intentionally creating another babbling fool :)

mama

[Nigel Reed]

Post by L. Maurer
ACK! Who's going to moderate it? We've got enough loony tunes on
UseNet now without intentionally creating another babbling fool :)

Hell, I'll moderate it! Except I'm not a babbling fool :)

I seem to be one of the few who actually accepts the charter for what it
is, and follows it ;)

Regards
Nigel

[W***@nospam.com]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 01:20:02 GMT, Nigel Reed

Post by Nigel Reed

Post by L. Maurer
ACK! Who's going to moderate it? We've got enough loony tunes on
UseNet now without intentionally creating another babbling fool :)

Hell, I'll moderate it! Except I'm not a babbling fool :)

I'd like to see a show of hands on that last pablum statement.

Post by Nigel Reed
I seem to be one of the few who actually accepts the charter for what it
is, and follows it ;)
Regards
Nigel

[BarB]

Post by al
So, the only possible solution is to transfer the dfw.* hierarchy, or at
least the dfw.forsale NG to a different server? Can a new group be
created, such as dfw1.* (including dfw1.forsale), on a different server,
that COULD adopt the allowance of commercial posting?

Newsgroups exist as multiple copies on many servers which swap
messages. The more servers that carry the group, the more likely it is
to get enough traffic to succeed. This is called "propagation".

The dfw.* hierarchy is managed, which means that most providers will
not add a group in that hierarchy to its server until it is approved
by whoever manages the hierarchy.

Post by al
Just wondering what the solution to the dilemna is, regardless of
whether the objective is ever realized.

The solution may be to go to the alt hierarchy, which is not managed.
alt.marketplace.online.ebay accepts auction announcements marked FA.
You might tag your posts FA DFW. If, and only if, you get a lot of
traffic and are corresponding with a lot of others doing the same
thing, would you consider forming perhaps
alt.marketplace.online.ebay.dfw. Anyone can register an alt group.
They propagate when users request them from the servers they use.

There's also the group alt.marketing.online.ebay which does not accept
commercial ads, but would be another place to discuss a new ebay
group. Don't go to alt.config with a proposal until you have a base of
prospective users. Read the FAQs. You will be flamed if you don't.:)

BarB

[Nigel Reed]

Post by BarB
There's also the group alt.marketing.online.ebay which does not accept
commercial ads, but would be another place to discuss a new ebay
group. Don't go to alt.config with a proposal until you have a base of
prospective users. Read the FAQs. You will be flamed if you don't.:)

alt.config can be especially ruthless for someone who isn't ready for
it. I just created my group anyway ;) Now it gets hundreds of posts a
week.

Regards
Nigel

[BarB]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:16:56 GMT, Nigel Reed

Post by Nigel Reed

Post by BarB
There's also the group alt.marketing.online.ebay which does not accept
commercial ads, but would be another place to discuss a new ebay
group. Don't go to alt.config with a proposal until you have a base of
prospective users. Read the FAQs. You will be flamed if you don't.:)

alt.config can be especially ruthless for someone who isn't ready for
it. I just created my group anyway ;) Now it gets hundreds of posts a
week.
Regards
Nigel

If the group you created is doing well, you probably knew how to do it
without any advice from alt.config.:) Most users don't and make a mess
of it.

What group was it anyway?

BarB

[Nigel Reed]

Post by BarB
What group was it anyway?

That'd be telling. Everyone would be looking it up and would spot the
stupid, stupid typo I make :)

Regards
Nigel