"Dr. Dr. K.G. Sherlock" wrote in message
...
JimH,

If we agree that the boat "review" is strictly a PR advertisement, i.e. an
article disguised as a review, that is actually an ad for the boat, don't
you agree that the "ad" was well written, on topic and interesting even if
you have no plans on buying a 2.2 million dollar boat?

Since the idea of rec.boats is to discuss boats, doesn't Gould's post
qualify as an excellent post that help to encourage boating discussions?

If you think about SPAM as something an individual or company profits from
posting in a NG, don't you agree that Gould, the magazine or the boat
builder will not profit from the post. It might be considered SPAM if the
article posted was for a $20,000 - $100,000 boat, because the boat builder
might profit from the publication in the NG, but I would still think it
would be appropriate for rec.boats because it would encourage boating
discussions.

But that is just my opinion.

1. We do not know if Chuck wrote the review.

2. The post of the Somers Insurance Agency is well written. Does that make
it OK then?

3. Chuck posted his as a troll. His opening sentence made that clear.
There was no other reason for the post.

4. He did not have to post the name and phone number of the yacht broker
selling those boats.

5. The review was conveniently void of any negative remarks about the boat.
No boat is perfect.

6. There are some folks here who could afford such a boat. So to say that
Chuck, his magazine or the boat builder would not profit is sheer
speculation.

I see his post no different than this insurance agency post, although I
guess I should have started it out by saying "dedicated to my special
friend"...that would certainly have made it better....eh?

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck....it is a
duck.

Quack, quack. ;-)