The Steeping Pot - Specialty Teas & Accessories

Hello Tea Drinkers,

I would like to introduce you all to the latest in Gourmet Loose Tea. The Steeping Pot has recently launched their new website at:

formatting link

At The Steeping Pot you will find a variety of premium loose teas, and accessories that are considered the best of the best. Many of our accessories were even featured on HGTV I Want That! We also offer a monthly newsletter that features exclusive coupons, tea in the news, and cooking with tea recipes.

As an added incentive to check us out, I'd like to present you all with an exclusive coupon for $5 off any order of $35 or more - simply enter the coupon code "teagroup" during checkout. This coupon will expire 06/15/2007.

I hope you'll stop by and visit us soon.

Happy Steeping!

Desirea The Steeping Pot

formatting link

Reply to
steepingpot
Loading thread data ...

Maybe it's time to revisit the group's charter... the current one is pretty minimal:

formatting link

If there's agreement from the group, I think it might make sense to specifically limit commercial posts entirely, or at least clarify the policy on commercial posts, so that we don't have any ambiguity w/r/t posts like this, and the Art of Tea post.

w
Reply to
Will Yardley
Reply to
The Steeping Pot

[...]

I was more bothered by the Steeping Pot ad also. I don't know why that is - probably because I may be interested in checking out Art of Tea, while I'm not particularly interested in what the Steeping Pot is selling.

Also, the folks from the Art of Tea seemed genuinely interested in engaging in dialogue, and not just promoting their magazine.

I think part of the reason that you didn't see as many posts complaining about this thread is because it's MORE blatant - people who were bothered by it probably reported it to the OP's ISP and / or google groups, or wrote them off-list to complain. I wasn't quited bothered enough to file a spam complaint since the group's charter isn't that clear, but I did write the sender off-list to complain.

Another part of the reason is because the spam issue was already discussed recently.

That said, I did reply to this thread, and suggest that we amend the charter to be clearer.

My reading of the Google Groups TOS is that (in THIS particular case, since the message was sent via Google Groups) the sender may be in the wrong, even if they're not technically in violation of the group's charter.

formatting link
"you will not ... post messages that promote pyramid schemes, chain letters or disruptive commercial messages or advertisements, or anything else prohibited by the Group owner."

I guess the sticking point is whether the message is "disruptive" or not.

w
Reply to
Will Yardley

Charter or no charter, I think we can all agree that no one needs to get their tea from anyone this unscrupulous.

Reply to
Alex

I don't see why it's an issue as long as it's related to the topic of the group, and provides some sort of useful information. As a consumer, I like to be informed of something I might be interested in.

Reply to
The Steeping Pot

I'm extremely sorry - I didn't realize everyone would be so up tight about my announcement. Why don't you simply delete it as if it never happened?

Reply to
The Steeping Pot

Why is this post an issue, but no one is complaining about the Agape posting?

Reply to
lsulegacy

Alex, Did I miss something, or did a representative of this company answer that Adagio supplies them, and they therefore used Adagio's text to describe the tea supplied? That's not unscrupulous, I don't think, unless you refer to another episode of unscrupulousness. Of course this doesn't answer to the question of whether we ought to tolerate advertising here. On that I tend to agree with you, although a one shot ad doesn't offend me. I *don't* find the teas offered by this company particularly attractive. Michael

Reply to
Michael Plant

It's an issue because you ripped off Adagio.

Reply to
Alex

I challenged the "violation of the Charter" thing because I felt the Charter was being misquoted and/or misinterpreted. The challenge was in the interest of being factual and really had nothing to do with my opinion.

My "opinion" is as follows, this is only my opinion and it has nothing to do with the Charter or USENET netiquette:

If a "contributing" poster to this group throws out an occasional blurb I really don't mind. If someone throws out a blurb that is

*specifically* related to the topic of a given thread I don't mind, often this type is very useful.

When someone who has never *contributed* throws out an ad I do mind. I guess to me the real metric is the motivation of the person over time. If their only motivation for posting is profit then I really don't care what they have to say. On the other hand if they are truly passionate about tea, and sometimes post solely in the interest of sharing knowledge, then I think they earn the right to the occasional blurb. In other words, those who contribute are welcome, those who do contribute are not.

In most cases I do not respond to "blatant" ads from non-contributors because to do so only gives them more buzz and bandwidth. I personally didnt respond to the SP post because it was a blatant ad from someone who has never contributed except with profit as a motive. To keep their thread alive only rewards them and I choose not to do that. I suspect that many old-timers feel the same way which is probably why you didn't see a flurry of posts. Any buzz is good buzz etc.

The Art of Tea blurb was acceptable in my opinion. The SP ad was not. Probably the only reason the AoT generated so much controversy was because it was indeed something of interest to many members of the group, but some contributors objected because they have an aversion to anything even remotely commercial. Blatant ads seldom generate that much buzz. Actually, I now applaud AoT for their efforts, even though I had reservations early on, I sincerely believe they will improve and refine their publication over time. To have such a resource in English is fantastic, I hope more publishers will follow this example. On the other hand, shops like SP are a dime a dozen, if they are depending on Adagio for their tea they have nothing of interest to me. If I want Adagio tea, I will simply go to Adagio........

Mike

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Petro

This is USENET. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Commercial postings are implicity prohibited in the discussion newsgroups. We don't have to admend the Charter for anything. The advertizers start their own .marketplace groups where they explicity state commercial posts are allowed.

Jim

PS I'm still work> Maybe it's time to revisit the group's charter... the current one is > pretty minimal:

Reply to
Space Cowboy
Reply to
The Steeping Pot

I challenged the "violation of the Charter" thing because I felt the Charter was being misquoted and/or misinterpreted. The challenge was in the interest of being factual and really had nothing to do with my opinion.

My "opinion" is as follows, this is only my opinion and it has nothing to do with the Charter or USENET netiquette:

If a "contributing" poster to this group throws out an occasional blurb I really don't mind. If someone throws out a blurb that is

*specifically* related to the topic of a given thread I don't mind, often this type is very useful.

When someone who has never *contributed* throws out an ad I do mind. I guess to me the real metric is the motivation of the person over time. If their only motivation for posting is profit then I really don't care what they have to say. On the other hand if they are truly passionate about tea, and sometimes post solely in the interest of sharing knowledge, then I think they earn the right to the occasional blurb. In other words, those who contribute are welcome, those who do contribute are not.

In most cases I do not respond to "blatant" ads from non-contributors because to do so only gives them more buzz and bandwidth. I personally didnt respond to the SP post because it was a blatant ad from someone who has never contributed except with profit as a motive. To keep their thread alive only rewards them and I choose not to do that. I suspect that many old-timers feel the same way which is probably why you didn't see a flurry of posts. Any buzz is good buzz etc.

The Art of Tea blurb was acceptable in my opinion. The SP ad was not. Probably the only reason the AoT generated so much controversy was because it was indeed something of interest to many members of the group, but some contributors objected because they have an aversion to anything even remotely commercial. Blatant ads seldom generate that much buzz. Actually, I now applaud AoT for their efforts, even though I had reservations early on, I sincerely believe they will improve and refine their publication over time. To have such a resource in English is fantastic, I hope more publishers will follow this example. On the other hand, shops like SP are a dime a dozen, if they are depending on Adagio for their tea they have nothing of interest to me. If I want Adagio tea, I will simply go to Adagio........

Mike

formatting link

Reply to
Mike Petro

I would support that.

--scott

Reply to
Scott Dorsey

DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.