On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 23:28:02 +0100, lid
(ChrisH) wrote:


That was a tongue-in-cheek question to my mind, but even if I were
wrong your response should have been via private mail.

Well I re-read the charter and it doesnt say that tongue-in-cheek
questions were not to be answered.
Of course silly me thought the question was genuine and serious, and I
actually went out of my way somewhat to find this information out.

I would also like to ask when you plan to amend the charter to state
quite clearly, when answering a question, you MUST never answer it by
mentioning any commercial ventures.


The charter is quite clear - have you read it?

Yes, I have, and I refer you to my previous questions.

See above. If unsuccessful ask for his email address.


But how would i know if i was unsuccesful in answering his question?
as you can see from this quote

Not that anyone would want to use it as such.
It's more of a warning marker that spam trawling is in progress


That is not necessary, just stay within the charter. Do you see me
advertising?

umm YES most definately i see you advertising


By your definition advertising is answering a question pointing
someone to a "commercial website", well perhaps you remember saying
this on 13 oct 2003

I'll grant you have a point on the interface, AstroAds is, shall we
say, basic. Nevertheless it does the job. I look at Astromart on
occaision and yes, and it's a more professional layout. However,
people use AstroAds not to admire the graphics but to buy and sell
telescopes - rapidly, conveniently, and with the minimum of fuss. Many

or this on Jan 13 2003

Hi Dave, I bought the book about 12 months ago from Amazon

or perhaps this on 17 April 1999

of the filter wheel), it needs to be present all the time. There must
be many sources but I know True Technology offer good quality
interference filter set, look he
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~truetech/filters.htm

or this 1 Jul 1999

SkyMap will
definitely work with the LX200 and you can get the demo from
www.skymap.com

you also said this 30 oct 1999
This is silly, Chris made a simple announcement that was of potential
interest to many here. I don't have any difficulty differentiating
between what was said and blatent commercial advertising

And how does that compare with my answer?

on 1st July 1999 you also said this
No problem suggesting something else, no need to be 'clever' about it
- a 6" or 8" Dob or EQ Newt (yes, in the same price range in the UK
from Beacon Hill or Orion Optics). Or a 4" refractor (David Hinds or
Venturescope). Either of these would blow away the ETX.

Perhaps you forgot that on 5-8-2001 you also wrote this

http://security.norton.com does a very good job at testing your PC
security. I'm using ZoneAlarm and it passed all tests apart from the


Do you see anyone else advertising? No - because we stick
by the rules. Those that don't tend to lose their ISP account PDQ.

So yes I do see other people answering direct questions with direct
answers that tell them about a commercial venture

Unless of course advertising for true tech filters, Amazon, Norton
David Hinds, beacon hill or venturescope are allowed, but i didnt see
any reference to these in the charter

Oddly enough, ISPs have removed peoples account PDQ for making
malicious complaints.

I will argue with you on this one, there is a difference between
answering a question and advertising.


Looking for astro bits and eyepieces?
http://www.stores.ebay.co.uk/astrobitsandpieces
http://members.ebay.co.uk/aboutme/orpheus1959