Teatalk (again)

That disclaimer is new. They added it today.

The original disclaimer simply stated that this was an interface to rec.food.drink.tea and was not moderated by anyone at Dragonwater. It didn't make it clear that this is usenet and not a site based forum.

(Incidentally, the new disclaimer comes from a suggestion I emailed to them.)

If it states it is not monitored or moderated than why is he editing out the posts about tea talk? Doesn't seem to honest on his part.

Mike

Derek wrote:

That's a good and valid point. Originally, he wasn't moderating it. He only took that step when a few individuals decided that they would do what they could to bad mouth his site by using RFDT to promote their own agenda against him.

Of course, if people would work with him to make the interface better rather than slinging mud, he wouldn't have a reason to moderate.

But, in the interest of honesty, the disclaimer would need edited.

The following statement is now on the front page. It is still rather misleading in my honest opinion.

Begin Quote>

Latest discussions on TeaTalk:

• Clear/Transparent Tea Glasses - when...
• Late Night Tea Revelations
• Lesson learned
• Any comment on Affinitea infuser
• Chamomile Tea May Have Medicinal Va...

775 discussions, 4120 messages

Shut the f!!k up. We got one webmaster calling another one dishonest. Please put up an elegant Usenet interface on your website so I can bitch there, which will appear here, so others can ream you, for any inappropriate posts here. I won't be the bad guy just you. You people at Teatalk don't pay attention to the hypocrites over here. This guy makes the same claim as you, he only wants to educate the tea masses. His only claim to fame no shopping cart. But convenient links to others who do. He even claims legitimacy for his website because of commercial endorsements. At most your use is misleading and that simply is because your customer base is ignorant which isn't your fault. That is better than purloined public domain material from this group used on his website.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:

Possibly. Perhaps "Latest Discussions Available Through TeaTalk" would be better.

As "TeaTalk" is merely an interface for accessing the group, much like "Google Groups", we need to make sure that the reality of what it is is made clear.

After all, Google profits from our sharing of information as well.

The problem is that "spin" is often in the eye of the beholder. Because you think that their primary motivation is to profit from our sharing of information does not mean that it is actually their primary motivation.

And he could just have easily "imposed" on us by providing an NNTP link to this group, which probably would bring up Outbreak Express for most users, who won't have an NNTP server defined in their profiles and who won't have any idea what to do next.

Or he could have provided a link to Google's archive of this group and had the same effect.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I think we're better off working with rather than complaining about the owners of the site.