inexpensive and workable hardwood

[Larry Blanchard]

I've also used alder (softer) and birch (harder). Depends on what's cheap in your area.

[George]

Balsa is also a soft hardwood.

George

[CW]

[Ken Johnsen]

Troll

also posts to shooting groups.

[Jana]

Hello, Yes, everyone, I realize some would concider this spam. Bob asked for the info and I was only trying to be helpful. I frequently check out what's going on here to learn tips from the knowledge of others. Concidering I not only sell lumber and flooring but I personally also finish furniture, by hand, for a living. Sorry if I've offended anyone but I think I've earned the priveledge of a post here and there. Trust me, I've done my time. Anyone who has ordered from us or even so much as emailed me with questions would say the same.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Like balsa, poplar is a hardwood.

OTOH, Foug Fir and Southern Yellow Pine both softwoods, are both harder than poplar.

The defintions of hardwood and softwood are objective though abitrary in the sense that neither depends on the hardness of the wood:

If it had leaves on it when it was alive, it is a hardwood. If it had needles on it when it was alive it is a softrwood.

I suggest he not use balsa.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

In the same vein, Aspen isn't real Poplar either. Real Poplar, Aspen and Cottonwood can look quite a bit alike both on the stump and by the board. I think Cottonwood is fuzzy too, though the name comes form the cottony fluff that forms when it 'flowers' not the fibrousness of the wood.

The north American tulip tree is more closely related to magnolia than to poplar and the one magnolia log I have seen looked a lot like poplar (tulip).

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Incorrectly IMHO, unless you widely crossposted or reposted it as spam requires a bulk characteristic.

The article in question plainly falls in the category of a commercial advertisement posted to a recreation newsgroup. On Usenet this predates spam by a decade or so. E.g. it has been despised longer than spam...

Some newsgroup charters permit comercial articles, others forbid them, most newsgroup charters have long-been ignored since most sys-admins long ago lost the authority to terminate users for charter violations.

For that matter, few sysadmins are allowed to terminate users for spam, hacking, identity theft, fraud, DDOS attacks or any outright criminal activity. A typical internet miscreant these days is hosted by an American Telecom where customer terminations have to be approved by the sales department.

Ah for the good old days when sysadmins ruled the internet.

[George]

Members of the Populus genus are, of course poplars, regardless of common names.

[Mutt]

Jana: Your suggestion of soft maple as an alternative to poplar was not only good advice (some boards of lesser quality are sold as "paint grade"), but the ever so slight touting of your business was in good taste as well, and to this observer, not offensive at all. You were also very nice in your response, I'd have told them to go pound salt up their arse.......

I'm now off to check out your site.

Mutt

[J. Clarke]

I don't recall seeing a SPAM post hosted by any company called "American Telecom". Most of it seems to be hosted by overseas companies or submitted via anonymous remailer. See for example the current round of Simpsons crap that is hosted by MCI Canada.

In point of fact the only time I can recall having any trouble getting a user terminated for egregious misbehavior was when he was hosted by Altopia. Finally ended up just killfiling the whole domain.

[bridger]

what about juniper? it's definitely a softwood, though it can be pretty hard and has neither leaves nor needles- though what it has is probably closer to leaves than needles....

[Yahoo]

Jana I don't consider it a spam. Fact I appreciate it as I'm looking for a new wood source, my locals are not satiscaftory anymore and you can't always find everything with Google

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Juniperus Virginiana (sp?) is pretty soft, and brittle, and toxic, and beautiful. I haven't worked with any others.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

From:

10 Spam Countries June 2004 (Based, i think, of volume of spam originating from servers in that country)

1 United States 2 China 3 South Korea 4 Taiwan 5 Brazil 6 Canada 7 Argentina 8 Russia 9 Italy 10 Hong Kong

Top 10 Worst Spam ISPs June 2004

1 mci.com 2 kornet.net 3 savvis.net 4 chinanet-cq 5 chinanet-gd 6 above.net 7 comcast.net 8 interbusiness.it 9 level3.net 10 verizon.net

Note #1, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are US-based.

Top 10 ROKSO Spammers June 2004

1 Alan Ralsky 2 Scott Richter - Wholesalebandwidth 3 Alexey Panov - ckync.com 4 Yambo Financials 5 Phil Doroff / Five Elements, Inc 6 Eric Reinertsen 7 John Grandinetti / 321send.com 8 lmihosting.com 9 Robert Soloway - NIM 10 Pavka / Artofit I recognize #1 and 2 as Americans, I'm sure a few more of the others are as well.

See also the ROKSO list:

complained to Sprint about spam from Whitcon (Nick Allaby) for about six months.

Then I escalated the complaints to two people in Sprint Management whose email addresses I obtained courtesy of bitchlist.com. One wrote back saying that she had referred to matter to Sprint abuse, who had already failed to act on the 50 to 100 complaints I had already sent to them. When the next Whitconspam was received, I wrote to her again and then recieved a reply from [e-mail], the first such reply I had ever received, all of the rest had been automated replies (e.g. auto-lies). Abuse.Sprint told me that they had dealt with my complaint by passing it on to the spammer. Evidently the abuse department at Sprint was still not authorized to teminate Whitcon, one of the internets most notorious spammers.

One of the most persistan myths on the intenet is that ISPs have trouble finding spammers. It is a damnlie. They don;pt hafve trouble finding spammers, spammers find hem and buy internet service from them.

Not from all ISPs. But those that were formerly major telecoms are the worst whereas some like AOL, and United Online maintain a huge userbase and stay pretty damned clean

You can look up your ISP here to see which spammers they host:

'd look it up for you but it looks like you are forging the headers in your UseNet articles.

[J. Clarke]

I am simply _dying_ to know your reasoning on that one.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

It falls into the category of a 'stealth' or 'drive-by ad'. As you note, the article was a valid otpical contribution to the discussion, with the commercial content slipped in at the end.

I didn't mind it either.

But, and it's big but, the issue is not whether or not I like the article, it is whether or not that sort of thing is permitted by the rec.woodworking charter.

Imagine if every one who sold woodworking related products contributed to every thread so as to slip in an ad. Suppose every thread about any tool carried by Sears would receive a polite, on-topic, contribution from the tool department manager of every Sears in North America. Ditto for wood finishes. Now suppose someone from every Home Depot and Lowes did the same.

That is why most newsgroup charters strictly forbid commercial postings. A common exception, for obvous reasons, is for sale or wanted to buy/trade ads posted by regular contributers to the groups, who plainly did not just post the ad and dissappear.

The quality of the articles is not the issue. It's the potential volume.

[Fred the Red Shirt]

Oh, yeah. A year or so ago someone else tried to educate me on that point. Keep pounding away, you'll eventually get it through my skull.

Thanks.

[Stephen M]

I am unaware of a formal "charter" as non-moderated group, any such charter would simply be edict by a self-appointed contributor.

That said, precedent shows that the occasional commercial post by conscientious contributors are considered acceptable.

Steve Knight come to mind.

I would argue that this does not even reach that standard as the commercial post in question was *solicited*.

Simplified:

OP: I need a solution to a problem Responder: Here is a valid solution, BTW I sell it. (Quality information provided, with full disclosure)

There is *nothing* even slightly unethical, or inappropriate about that. If I were the OP, I would appreciate that response.

-Steve

[J. Clarke]

Then what are you bellyaching about?

I see. So you are laboring under the misconception that someone appointed you netcop and charged you with the duty of reporting even the most minute violation of the newsgroup charter. Well, guess what. Nobody did. With regard to the post being a violation of the charter, is it? Do you have a link to or copy of the charter? If so, you would be doing the group as a whole a service if you would you be kind enough to post it as the original appears to have been lost. If not, then would you be kind enough to quit accusing people of infractions of a charter that you have not yourself read?

Since that would require that (a) the tool department manager of every Sears in the country actually knew enough to provide a polite, on-topic contribution, and (b) that he actually read the wreck that would probably be an improvement over the current situation. However I suspect that the Sears marketing department would consider this to be a waste of resources.

In any case, the practice in many newsgroups is to allow commercial posts provided they are not excessive--once a month per company is a common limitation. Absent a copy of the rec.woodworking charter I think it would be courteous to assume this limit.

Same.

Never happen. They'd have to hire someone in every store who actually knew how to read.

In any case, any of these scenarios would easily cross the SPAM threshold.

Do they? Do you have statistics on this?

A common exception, for obvous reasons, is for sale

When "potential" from this particular poster turns into "actual" then I'd worry about it.

>