From: "Paul Ranson" 

Yet what Joe is aiming to achieve here is hits for news.com.com. I have to
go there to find out who is writing Joe's material, and  I need to know
that in order to judge credibility. (In this case the credibility is
marginal).

If I had a web site that posted material and hosted advertising and I
passed through news groups linking to stories on it with a short quote, I
think that would be unacceptable behaviour. The only difference between
Joe's post and an ad for porn is that the subject matter is somewhat
relevant. But he hasn't added any value to the advert. 'Eric Raymond writes
at news.com.com....' would be a start.

Paul

"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:3eca8926$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Is there a difference between this sort of post and spam?
> >
> > An original source credit...
>
> He had the link, that's all one needs to find out those questions for
> himself.
>
> >and some personal input would change matters.
>
> You can't guess what he thinks about it?    (pretty much the same thing
> I'd I expect)
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
> "Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
> news:3eca6497$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > Is there a difference between this sort of post and spam?
> >
> > An original source credit and some personal input would change matters.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> > news:pan.2003.05.20.02.53.09.253465{at}austin.rr.com...
> > > http://news.com.com/2010-1071-1007758.html
> > >
> > >  The real story here is the lack of substance to the SCO claims, and
the
> > >  increasingly remote chance that its lawyers will prevail. A similar
> case
> > >  alleging plagiarism of Unix by an open-source operating system was
> > >  litigated in the early '90s. AT&T sued the University
of California,
> > >  claiming that the BSD system infringed upon AT&T's copyrights.
> > >  Eventually, the court narrowed AT&T's concerns down to only four
source
> > >  files, which the university simply replaced rather than argue about
> them.
> > >  AT&T then settled the case by paying the university's
court costs.
SCO
> is
> > >  not likely to do any better.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4