Posted by New Guy on September 26, 2009, 10:47 am
Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
anti-brand-name postings?
Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?
Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
counterparts?
In other words - is this an example of "professional" usenet spam, as
part of a public marketing campaign?
Are there any known examples of this type of usenet spam?
Is there no way for these posts to be filtered properly by cleanfeed and
noceum?
-----------------------------------------------
Path: news-out.readnews.com!postnews3.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: misc.consumer, misc.consumer.house, misc.consumers,
misc.consumers.home, misc.consumers.house
Subject: Save Money
Organization: Clinic
Followup-To: misc.consumer, misc.consumer.house
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: 25 Sep 2009 22:01:16 GMT
Lines: 25
NNTP-Posting-Host: f880c7a3.news.netcarrier.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@netcarrier.com
Most people don't realize that they spend hundreds or even thousands of
dollars a year buying the heavily advertised (HA) brand products in the
grocery and department stores. There is nothing in the grocery store
that is rocket science. Many of the less advertised (LA) brands or store
brands are just as good or better as the HA brands. You are paying for
the brainwashing that many HA brand manufacturers put in their
advertising campaigns. It is not difficult to make shampoos,
conditioners, cleaning products and all those other products that can be
found in your local grocery or department store.
Why are you paying 4+ dollars for baby shampoo when you can buy the less
advertised brand for half the money? Do you like wasting money? If the
name brand products are better why would companies be spending billions
of dollars in advertising? The answer is that they are not better. They
are trying to convince you that the high price they are charging is some
how justified by a better product. Even over the counter drugs like
aspirin can be bought for half the price of the HA brands. This is a
product that has been around for decades. The LA products are under the
same FDA regulations as the HA brands. Save a lot of money and don't buy
the over priced HA brands.
When you pay the higher price for the HA brands you are paying for the
ridiculous high salaries of the CEO's, private jets, golden parachutes
and for the billions spent on advertising.
Every time you go to the store you can save several dollars. Over time
this can amount to a significant amount of money.
Posted by Tony Sivori on September 26, 2009, 3:55 pm
New Guy wrote:
> Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
> anti-brand-name postings?
>
> Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?
>
> Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
> that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
> counterparts?
>
> In other words - is this an example of "professional" usenet spam, as
> part of a public marketing campaign?
>
> Are there any known examples of this type of usenet spam?
>
> Is there no way for these posts to be filtered properly by cleanfeed and
> noceum?
Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic, or that it has
been posted before does not make it spam.
On Usenet, being BI > 20 makes it spam. The OP is working on it, but he
isn't there yet.
That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been directly on topic.
My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to newsgroups
verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't appear to be the case.
I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it says. What
the OP doesn't mention is that sometimes store brands are noticeably
inferior to the brand names.
By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the spammer an
enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its entirety in your reply. The
spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many individuals
newsreaders.
By re-posting the entire article from your account, you enabled him to
effectively evade all filters.
--
Tony Sivori
Due to spam, I'm filtering all Google Groups posters.
Posted by New Guy on September 26, 2009, 7:43 pm
Tony Sivori wrote:
> > Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on
> > usenet?
>
> Just because you may not like it, or it may be off topic, or that
> it has been posted before does not make it spam.
A posting is spam if the poster's intent is not to seek an answer to a
question, or if the poster does not seek (or intend) to start a
conversation. This is especially true if the same post is made on a
periodic basis, and mischief is employed in the headers (ie - bogus
follow-up group list). Obviously, periodic posting of newsgroup
charters or FAQ's is not spam.
> On Usenet, being BI > 20 makes it spam. The OP is working on
> it, but he isn't there yet.
I have no idea what any of that means.
> That said, I'm not sure why the OP didn't post it to
> misc.consumers.frugal-living where it would have been
> directly on topic.
I have seen these anti-brand-name posts in groups other than
misc.consumers.*, where they are clearly off-topic.
> My guess was that it is a website article, re-posted to
> newsgroups verbatim. After searching Google, that doesn't
> appear to be the case.
If you feel those posts are justified or above reproach, then so too is
my post asking who would have a motive to post them. It's an odd topic
to develop a posting-fetish over.
> I think it is a decent post, and I agree with most of what it
> says.
So how often, and in how many groups, is it legit to post it too?
I don't give a fuck about generic vs brand name. I think anyone who's
got enough brain cells to be able to read usenet also knows enough about
the differences between generic and brand name stuff.
In fact, what's missing from that post is the nugget of information that
most every consumable product (procesed foods, shampoo, etc) are made in
a handful of mega-plants, and just before they come off the end of the
line they get slapped with various brand-name or generic labels. It's
more than just the idea that brand-name is frequently the same quality
as generic - it's that they're often made by the same plant.
> By the way, New Guy, if it were spam you would have done the
> spammer an enormous favor by re-posting the spam in its
> entirety in your reply.
If it was such an enormous favor, then the spammer could have simply
posted it again today, and again tommorrow, etc.
But I don't think it was any favor to shine a critical light on his
posts, speculting why he's posting it, his motives, who he might be,
etc. I'm sure he doesn't appreciate that. But I don't expect he knows
because he doesn't participate in usenet beyond spamming it.
> The spammer would be filtered on many servers and in many
> individuals newsreaders.
The news server that I use does indeed employ one or two some-what
sophisticated and distributed spam-removal mechanisms. But the post in
question obviously was not picked up as spam.
> By re-posting the entire article from your account, you
> enabled him to effectively evade all filters.
My intent was to start a conversation about who he might be, and the
motives for his posts. If others did not see his original post because
it was filtered from their server, then my inclusion of his post serves
to provide an example that is necessary to further the conversation for
those people.
Posted by Rod Speed on September 27, 2009, 6:15 am
Bill wrote:
>> Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
>> anti-brand-name postings?
>>
> Some people are "giving type" people and like to share. (As opposed
> to the selfish "me" generation people who are only capable of
> thinking about themselves.)
> Some people are "more intelligent" than others and teach others what
> they know. For example these people might see others with financial
> difficulties spending their money foolishly. And they are simply
> pointing out ways to better manage money. And thus rectify the
> financial difficulties in question.
> As to generic vs name brand, in many cases both products are made by the same
company!
Yes.
> They make the SAME profit by selling either!
Nope.
> The only difference is they tack on the cost of advertising to the name brand
product.
Its MUCH more complicated than that.
Posted by Doug Miller on September 27, 2009, 10:04 am
>Does anyone have any theory as to who is responsible for these
>anti-brand-name postings?
Yes: you are. This one, at least. I didn't see it, and never would have, if
you hadn't reposted it.
>Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?
You tell me.
>Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
>that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
>counterparts?
I imagine. How much they paying you, anyway, to repost the spam posts after
they're cancelled by the ISPs?
XML site map
> anti-brand-name postings?
>
> Who would have a reason to post this material periodically on usenet?
>
> Is someone getting paid by generic product makers to put the word out
> that generic products are just as good, if not cheaper, than brand-name
> counterparts?
>
> In other words - is this an example of "professional" usenet spam, as
> part of a public marketing campaign?
>
> Are there any known examples of this type of usenet spam?
>
> Is there no way for these posts to be filtered properly by cleanfeed and
> noceum?