From: "Geo." 

You guys..  it's pretty bad when this  is too much work to find the information you want.

Geo.

"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3ecbb1ed$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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