>> Not being invested in this pissing contest, I took a look at the blog.
>> While he does mention and point to his supplements company in one
>> standard sidebar in the blog, none of the articles (and I read them
>> all) have a commercial bent to them. You're being a bit too harsh.
>
>You can't be too harsh on spammers. If any spam
>is permissable, all spam becomes permissable, and
>the non-commercial discussion newsgroups will be
>lost in an ocean of spam. I'm not in favor of
>unlimited spamming in the newsgroups. Remember
>all the spam we were recently receiving for
>counterfeit leather goods from China? It'll
>be worse than that. There are no good spammers,
>there are no innocent spammers.
>
>There are commercial newsgroups where it is
>permissible to plug your commercial web site.
>Why can't he limit himself to those newsgroups?
>It's because he doesn't care about the future
>of this newsgroup. He only cares about his own
>interests, not the on-line community that has
>developed here. He sees it as free advertising
>for his business, nothing more.

Mark, I understand where you're coming from, and I appreciate your
diligence, but I'm not an absolutist about the issue in this
particular case because 1. There is only that one sidebar reference to
his company, 2. The articles are not commercial fluff pieces, and 3.
The articles contain a fair amount of quality content.