Magellan GPS: Does TomTom, as a company, know about something called Usenet?

Ramon F Herrera wrote: 

Usenet newsgroups are public forums, anyone can start one. The fact
that there is not one does not place the onus on Tom Tom to start one.
They cannot use it it for business purposes so if Tom Tom wants to start
a forum they would have to start a private forum.

You're a little out of line for trying to run those folks off. It is
not your job or anyone else's. There is no prohibition on discussing
Tom Tom GPS here. If there is no more specific newsgroup, this is an
appropriate one.

Just ignore it. You are disoriented and having a bad experience. :>)

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)

Jack Erbes wrote: 

Ramon,

Read up on cross posting too.

The Tom Tom posts that got you going were were only to
alt.satellite.gps, why would you cross post this to three other
newsgroups?

My bad was replying to all the cross posted groups, I should have caught
that in my first reply.

Friendly advice, no flaming intended.

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)

Jack Erbes <net> wrote in
news:com:
 

Hey that OP complainer better demand a refund. LOL.

Or that there product is better then the rest and they have fewer
problems with there units.


Ramon F Herrera wrote: 

Jack Erbes wrote: 

Jack:

You are some 15 years late with the business purpose rule. Besides, the
non-commercial limitation was imposed on the Internet, never on Usenet.
Would you say that the following groups had absolutely no relationship
with the corresponding company?

comp.databases.oracle.*
comp.dcom.sys.cisco
(and a very long etcetera).

And even:

borland.*.*..
microsoft.*.*..

The newsgroup I am proposing (too bad I don't run newsgroup servers
anymore, or I would create it myself) is alt.satellite.gps.tomtom. Are
you saying that the newsgroup in question wouldn't be in the interest
of TomTom Corp's business? Are you saying that a TomTom techie is
forbidden from creating it?

Additionally, the alt.* hierarchy is devoid of the rules imposed on the
traditional ones.

-Ramon

Jack Erbes wrote: 

Quite the opposite. I think they deserve a nice home like everybody
else, instead of living in the public park.
 

Really? How do you think new newsgroups are created?

-Ramon

Ramon F Herrera wrote: 

You tell me. Are Oracle, Cisco, Borland, MicroSoft, etc., sponsoring
those groups? Are they participating in discussions there as official
or recognized representatives of those companies?

I don't consider posts from any employees of the companies to to be
official and recognized. And, last I knew, the use of those names in
the newsgroup names did not mean the companies were sanctioning the
groups in any way, shape, or form. Garmin is not here in any official
capacity, did you know that?

If you go to Tom Tom web page and search for it, there is no mention of
any Tom Tom forums. If you go to Cisco's home page and do a search for
forums it produces this page full of forums:

http://forums.cisco.com/eforum/servlet/NetProf?page=main

The Cisco Internet forums are official organs of the company and there
are parallel examples of those kinds of commercially sponsored Internet
forums throughout the Internet. They are *not* USENET newsgroups in any
sense of the word.

Here is a page with good background on and descriptions of USENET:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Moderated_and_unmoderated_newsgroups

Here is a page with good background on and descriptions of Internet forums:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum

As you can see, they are clearly two different things.

We are participating here in an unmoderated newsgroup and I think that
is what you proposed the posters form. Even if this were a moderated
newsgroup (and only a very small minority of newsgroups are moderated)
it is unlikely that a corporation like Tom Tom NV would have written the
charter for and formed a USENET newsgroup.

In fact, I don't know that they could even do it under the "rules" of
USENET.
 

I don't think you understand the difference between USENET and Internet
forums. When you "ran newsgroup servers" did you control or edit the
content of individual newsgroups? My acquaintance with USENET servers
in the past was that they were pretty autonomous. If anyone wanted to
host USENET content, they pretty much had to host what the users of the
servers wanted to read.
 

I'm saying that it would not necessarily be in their best interests.
But a commercial forum created by them, and stored on their servers,
would be in their business interests. Since they would have no control
of the content and no official standing on an unmoderated USENET
newsgroup it could actually act against their best interests.
 

Nope, I'm not saying that yet. I'd have to study the rules some more
answer that question. Why don't we do this, you cite a USENET reference
or document for me that says a "Tom Tom techie" *can* do it. I think he
can do it, and that an employer can approve their doing it. But I don't
know of anyway for Tom Tom to have any control of or "standing" in the
group.
 

I agree. I remember when that got started. I think it was originally
intended to provide groups where potentially offensive content or topics
that were outside of mainstream moral and social standards could be
hosted. And they also provided a place for posting binaries.

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
<snip> 

Something like this:

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/creating-newsgroups/part1/

You're going to have to start doing at least some of your own research.
Have you studied this matter at all?

Jack

--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)