On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:30:19 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Thanks...not that I have any new products of boating interest, but I
don't mind reading about them, no matter the source.

Someone ought to send the FAQ to Larry.
Actually, I was responding to what I took to be a discussion about
product announcements, since I hadn't seen the original post. But as
for the charter:

The rec.boats.electronics newsgroup is chartered for discussion of all
aspects of marine electronics.

The newsgroup is open to discussion of all marine and boating-related
electronic systems. This includes their use, care and feeding,
troubleshooting and repairs, etc. These systems include GPS/Loran,
radar/sonar, radio, navigation and performance instruments,
interfacing standards (NMEA, etc.), electronic charting, software,
computers, simulators, power supplies, etc.

The group is not intended for discussion of electro-mechanical systems
such as pumps, heads, lights, water heaters, etc.

"For Sale" and "Wanted To Buy" postings are not appropriate in this
group (rec.boats.marketplace exists for that purpose), but new product
announcements and discussions are appropriate.

The general "nettiquete" FAQs posted in news.announce.newusers and
news.answers all apply to rec.boats.electronics.

END CHARTER.

I just googled the original post, and while it is on-topic, it seems
to be just an add for a website with some cool stuff, not an
announcement. A fine distinction, perhaps, but that's the charter.

I think Meindert is correct about the spam issue, though. "Spam" is a
nasty word for a nasty practice and shouldn't be casually thrown
about. Also, since spam is now defined as a crime by several current
and coming statutes, calling someone a spammer without proof is not
just namecalling anymore. It's publicly accusing someone of a crime.
I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on the inernet, but that's not
something I'd care to do.

The message is apparently a breach of the charter and the rules of
netiquette explicitly included in the charter, though. Not as big a
breach as publishing someone's contact info on Usenet, perhaps, but a
breach.

Now, we've spent 20 times the bandwidth used by the original post
discussing it, as is alwways the case. Shall we go for 40?

__________________________________________________ __________
Glen "Wiley" Wilson usenet1 SPAMNIX at worldwidewiley dot com
To reply, lose the capitals and do the obvious.

Take a look at cpRepeater, my NMEA data integrator, repeater, and
logger at http://www.worldwidewiley.com/