Call for a vote:

John Corliss

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:56:38 AM4/29/06

to

Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
please start another thread.

Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
be considered on-topic in this group?

--
Regards from John Corliss
I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

KeithS

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 4:34:14 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

Yes

--
KeithS.

To reply directly, replace the first at with the second one

HVS

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 4:37:59 AM4/29/06

to

On 29 Apr 2006, John Corliss wrote

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is
> called for, please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing
> features that one is looking for in a freeware program, should
> discussion of nagware be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

John Corliss

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 4:49:12 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

No.

John Rampling

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 4:52:13 AM4/29/06

to

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware be
> considered on-topic in this group?
>

Yes

John

Stubbo_of_Oz

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 4:59:21 AM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss
<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:

>, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

NO
--
Stubbo of Oz

Craig

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 5:08:19 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

No

miskairal

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 5:09:41 AM4/29/06

to

Yes

Andy Mabbett

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 5:30:08 AM4/29/06

to

In message <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>, John Corliss
<jcor...@fake.invalid> writes

>lease just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>please start another thread.

Nope.

>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>be considered on-topic in this group?

That's not voting, it's a straw poll, with no validity whatsoever
(unless you can explain who is entitled to vote, and how you plan to
stop people voting more than once).
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>

Jim Smith

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 6:45:56 AM4/29/06

to

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com...

NO

Vic Dura

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 6:46:15 AM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss

<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote Re Call for a vote::

>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>please start another thread.
>
>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.

Message has been deleted

John Jay Smith

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 8:01:13 AM4/29/06

to

No as a general rule, but yes on seldom, justified occasions.
This newsgroup is about freeware not nagware, however you cannot forbid
someone from talking!

On some exceptional occasions one might want to

give information to a nagware that is not abusive or irritating,

as the last alternative other than spending money or cracking a program.

John Corlis is mad because I told someone about www.995pdf.com

that is not exactly freeware. It opens a browser after you use it with a
sponsor.

I personally have used the pdf printer and I find it a fantastic product,

NOT some stupid nagware, and I dont mind pressing the close button on the
browser.

I mentioned this software because there is no other freeware in this
category for windows.
If it wasnt so good, I wouldnt have said anything.. I have no gain
whatsoever in talking about a program, nor do I have any wish to post in
this group irrelevant content all the time.

So what does he do? He starts a vote now, so he can then say to me, get lost

no one wants your contribution, you are off topic, bla bla bla....

I find this type of childlike action very disturbing... of troll and NetCop
calibre....
trying to create a climate of hate...

I do not regularly post anything else than freeware. On the rare occasion
that

I think I should mention something else, I do, and I do this to help,
without having any personal gain.

I suspect that he is a nice guy, but everyone can get overly enthusiastic
sometimes.

Peace

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com...

seaside

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 8:04:22 AM4/29/06

to

YES

L...@unreal.invalid

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 8:21:54 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

YES

Lou

RobbH

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 8:25:59 AM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes

Message has been deleted

Gary R. Schmidt

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:05:13 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

Yes.

Cheers,
Gary B-)

--
______________________________________________________________________________
Armful of chairs: Something some people would not know
whether you were up them with or not
- Barry Humphries

Al

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:09:15 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

yes

Paul_B

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:25:06 AM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes, nagware should be allowed as long as it is identified as
such.

Message has been deleted

Maynard Man

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:46:50 AM4/29/06

to

Knot

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:47:44 AM4/29/06

to

In article <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>, jcor...@fake.invalid
says...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>
>

Yes

ranrad

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:55:05 AM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

No

The Seabat

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 9:53:05 AM4/29/06

to

NO!
--
The Seabat

Message has been deleted

Ivan V. Klattrup

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 10:28:22 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss skrev:

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

No, but only if
A. Programs with splashscreens are not to be discussed
B. Program that makes shortcuts on the desktop are not discussed

Both things are not needed for any program.
--
Ivan V. Klattrup
http://www.klattrup.dk

prospero33

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 10:29:35 AM4/29/06

to

Yes

Huss

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 10:39:05 AM4/29/06

to

In message <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>, John Corliss
<jcor...@fake.invalid> writes

>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called
>for, please start another thread.
>

>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>be considered on-topic in this group?
>

No.
--
Huss

norman...@comcast.net

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 10:45:55 AM4/29/06

to

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware be
> considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

Roger Johansson

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 10:59:04 AM4/29/06

to

Yes, but this voting is not arranged by our point person, it is not
arranged by us as a collective, it is an irregular voting started by a
person who has a hidden agenda.

Whatever the result it is not valid.

John Jay Smith wrote:

> John Corlis is mad because I told someone about www.995pdf.com
> that is not exactly freeware. It opens a browser after you use it with a
> sponsor.
> I personally have used the pdf printer and I find it a fantastic product,

> I mentioned this software because there is no other freeware in this

> category for windows.
> If it wasnt so good, I wouldnt have said anything..

Thanks, good advice. And thanks for the explanation of this situation.

> I suspect that he is a nice guy,

No, he isn't.

--
Roger J.

John Jay Smith

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 11:09:22 AM4/29/06

to

> Yes, but this voting is not arranged by our point person, it is not
> arranged by us as a collective, it is an irregular voting started by a
> person who has a hidden agenda.
> Whatever the result it is not valid.

I agree... I wanted to bring that up too, but I really dont want to start a
flame war here...

>> I suspect that he is a nice guy,
>
> No, he isn't.

I really dont know who this guy is... but his signature does seem
disturbing...

--
-Ken www.computerboom.com

If you call me a troll, lets go sunbathing and see who turns to stone. :-)

"Roger Johansson" <roge...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146322744.8...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

badgolferman

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 11:16:48 AM4/29/06

to

John Corliss, 4/29/2006,3:56:38 AM, wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called
> for, please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features
> that one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of
> nagware be considered on-topic in this group?

yes

Franklin

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 11:57:45 AM4/29/06

to

On 29 Apr 2006, John Corliss<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called
> for, please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features
> that one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of
> nagware be considered on-topic in this group?

I am slow and the question is hard to get my head around. Maybe there
has been a thread which has explored nagware recently.

I think nagware could be discussed in this group but not in the same way
or to the same level as shareware. For example, one might make a
passing reference to nagware applications or advise that they are free
although with annoying nag boxes.

hummingbird

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 12:17:50 PM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700 'John Corliss'
posted this on alt.comp.freeware:

>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>please start another thread.
>
>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

QV

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 12:41:28 PM4/29/06

to

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> kirjoitti viestissä
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

> --
> Regards from John Corliss
> I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
> for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
> demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
> software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

No.
QV

Message has been deleted

Caesar Romano

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 1:36:08 PM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 13:04:22 +0100, seaside <sea...@nonesuch.com>
wrote Re Re: Call for a vote::

>YES

It looks like the YES votes carry the question.

However, this is just a straw poll and not binding.
--
Slimes-Daily motto: 1) Tax and Spend, 2) Change the Constituion to make it easier to do (1).

Junefly

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 1:54:41 PM4/29/06

to

"John Corliss" <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in message

No!

Rundkopf

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 2:20:27 PM4/29/06

to

John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in

news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

yes

Susan Bugher

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:01:26 PM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

yes

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php

"Nagware: has a popup (nag) screen, asking you to purchase the software.
You must press a button to get past the nag screen."

We've been discussing Nagware apps for years AND selecting them for the
Pricelessware List - often with *inaccurate* ware descriptions. . .

Trillian was (finally) *identified* as Nagware during the PL2004
selection process. Trillian's nag started after 1000-2002 hours of use.
Note: Trillian was selected for PL2004 after winning a ware ballot.
(Trillian was also selected for PL2002, PL2003.)

There were "It's not *really* Nagware" posts during the recent
Pricelessware ware ballots for PowerDesk (PL2006x, PL2005, PL2004,
PL2003, PL2002, PL2001) and AntiVir PersonalEdition Classic (PL2006x,
PL2005, PL2004, PL2003).

"It's not *really* Nagware" is fuzzy thinking. If it meets the ACF
definition of Nagware it IS Nagware and it should be labeled as such.
OTOH a Nagware label does not tell the whole story - all nags are NOT
alike.

ISTM good ware descriptions are one of ACF's greatest accomplishments
Censorship encourages fuzzy thinking and bad ware descriptions. IMO
attempting to censor discussion of Nagware is step in the wrong direction.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

MLC

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:08:41 PM4/29/06

to

sabato 29 aprile 2006 John Corliss ha scritto:

> Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

yes

--
Maria Luisa C - 29/04/2006 21.08.08
He was dull in a new way, and that made many think him great.
Samuel Johnson

John Jay Smith

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:13:47 PM4/29/06

to

Suzan, are you the webmaster of that site? priclesswarehome.org?

thanx

--
-Ken www.computerboom.com

If you call me a troll, lets go sunbathing and see who turns to stone. :-)

"Susan Bugher" <sebu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4bhr4eF...@individual.net...

Susan Bugher

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:24:23 PM4/29/06

to

John Jay Smith wrote:

> Suzan, are you the webmaster of that site? priclesswarehome.org?

Yes.

Andy Mabbett

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 3:44:01 PM4/29/06

to

In message <4453...@newsgate.x-privat.org>, John Jay Smith
<-@?.?.invalid> writes

>I suspect that he is a nice guy

Perhaps he's never told you to drink drain cleaner, stalked you to other
newsgroups, or made implicit threats of violence against you. Yet...
--
Andy Mabbett
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>

Free Our Data: <http://www.freeourdata.org.uk>

Message has been deleted

Omar©

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 6:16:24 PM4/29/06

to

John Corliss wrote:
>
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

> --
> Regards from John Corliss
> I don't reply to trolls like Andy Mabbett or Doc (who uses sock puppets)
> for instance. No adware, cdware, commercial software, crippleware,
> demoware, nagware, PROmotionware, shareware, spyware, time-limited
> software, trialware, viruses or warez for me, please.

Yes
--
"When I am right, No one remembers
When I am wrong, No one forgets"

Gert van der Kooij

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 7:14:22 PM4/29/06

to

In article <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>, jcor...@fake.invalid
says...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

No

JayJay

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 7:20:08 PM4/29/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

Message has been deleted

Jim @ UsableFreeware.com

unread,

Apr 29, 2006, 8:11:39 PM4/29/06

to

Yes.

--
Jim Allison
Usable Freeware - www.usablefreeware.com

Message has been deleted

or www.mantra.com/jai

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 2:40:37 AM4/30/06

to

In article <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>,
John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> posted:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

dansheen

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 2:53:41 AM4/30/06

to

John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

yes

Bjorn Abelli

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 6:03:08 AM4/30/06

to

> 'John Corliss' wrote:
>
>>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>>please start another thread.
>>
>>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>>be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes

But I also think that those discussing nagware should be frank about the
severity of its nagging. The similar thing goes for crippleware, etc.

I'm not sure that this thread can be considered a "vote", but I consider it
to be an interesting "opinion poll".

// Bjorn A

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

Message has been deleted

Daniel Mandic

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 6:41:25 AM4/30/06

to

Roger Johansson wrote:

>
> Yes, but this voting is not arranged by our point person, it is not
> arranged by us as a collective, it is an irregular voting started by a
> person who has a hidden agenda.
>
> Whatever the result it is not valid.
>
> John Jay Smith wrote:
>
> > John Corlis is mad because I told someone about www.995pdf.com
> > that is not exactly freeware. It opens a browser after you use it
> > with a sponsor.
> > I personally have used the pdf printer and I find it a fantastic
> > product,
>
> > I mentioned this software because there is no other freeware in this
> > category for windows.
> > If it wasnt so good, I wouldnt have said anything..
>
> Thanks, good advice. And thanks for the explanation of this situation.
>
>
> > I suspect that he is a nice guy,
>
> No, he isn't.

You are going the best way for a right-radical State. In my holy
opinion :-)
America is getting better than you. I would shit on such policies, as I
shit here on the same policies.

Best Regards,

Daniel Mandic

Yo Mismo

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 7:07:09 AM4/30/06

to

In article <125671t...@corp.supernews.com>, John Corliss

says...

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>
>

No

Zo

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 8:15:13 AM4/30/06

to

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that one
> is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware be
> considered on-topic in this group?

No!

--
Zo

!CAUTION! Taglines may be hazardous to your disk space!

hummingbird

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 9:10:18 AM4/30/06

to

On 30 Apr 2006 12:03:08 +0200 'Bjorn Abelli'
posted this onto alt.comp.freeware:

>> 'John Corliss' wrote:
>>
>>>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>>>please start another thread.
>>>
>>>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>>>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>>>be considered on-topic in this group?
>
>Yes
>
>But I also think that those discussing nagware should be frank about the
>severity of its nagging. The similar thing goes for crippleware, etc.

I agree that would be very helpful. It's irritating to be led to a
piece of s/w only to find out later that it's nagware or whatever.
But it's always possible that the user might still decide it's the
best program for the job.

>I'm not sure that this thread can be considered a "vote", but I consider it
>to be an interesting "opinion poll".

I think John Corliss lives in a parallel universe...

Message has been deleted

Colin

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:36:29 AM4/30/06

to

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:15:13 -0400, Zo <z...@homenet.net> wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that one
> is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware be
> considered on-topic in this group?

YES

Regards,
Colin

Bill Day

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:41:24 AM4/30/06

to

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700, John Corliss

<jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote:

>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>please start another thread.
>
>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>be considered on-topic in this group?

No.

Caesar Romano

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 10:53:28 AM4/30/06

to

On 30 Apr 2006 12:03:08 +0200, "Bjorn Abelli"
<bjorn_...@DoNotSpam.hotmail.com> wrote Re Re: Call for a vote::

>> 'John Corliss' wrote:
>>
>>>Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
>>>please start another thread.
>>>
>>>Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
>>>one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
>>>be considered on-topic in this group?
>
>Yes
>
>But I also think that those discussing nagware should be frank about the
>severity of its nagging. The similar thing goes for crippleware, etc.

Yes, certainly.

>
>I'm not sure that this thread can be considered a "vote", but I consider it
>to be an interesting "opinion poll".

That's more accurate.
--
Slimes-Daily motto: 1) Tax and Spend, 2) Change the Constituion to make it easier to do (1).

burnr

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 11:40:27 AM4/30/06

to

John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com:

The Six Million Dollar Man

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 2:21:46 PM4/30/06

to

John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>
> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

no

LPV

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 4:34:01 PM4/30/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware be
> considered on-topic in this group?

Yes.

Loren

Eric Huebner

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 4:46:46 PM4/30/06

to

Am Sat, 29 Apr 2006 00:56:38 -0700 schrieb John Corliss:

...

no

Vegard Krog Petersen

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 5:25:39 PM4/30/06

to

on 29.04.2006 09:56 John Corliss wrote:
> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> please start another thread.
>

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> be considered on-topic in this group?
>

No.

--
Vegard Krog Petersen - Norway

http://vegard2.no -
Solitaire MahJongg guide, Sarah Michelle Gellar Solitaire,
Freeware Logo & symbol, Halma & Chinese Checkers,
Pachisi & Ludo, Freeware Solitaire, My fishy site (fishing
games), a.c.f.g information, Fredrikshald Havfiskeklubb
18+ sites: Firefoxy, Adult Solitaire, Fishy Pictures,
Sexy Chess, Sexy Librarians, Sexy Football
---------------------------------------------------------

Ash

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 6:42:17 PM4/30/06

to

> on 29.04.2006 09:56 John Corliss wrote:
> > Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called for,
> > please start another thread.
> >
> > Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features that
> > one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of nagware
> > be considered on-topic in this group?

Yes

Doc

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 8:56:57 PM4/30/06

to

hummingbird <OPRBMD...@spammotel.com> wrote in
news:fjd952tu790pnl2hr...@4ax.com:

>
> I think John Corliss lives in a parallel universe...

Parallel with what ? Not mine.

Mike Dee

unread,

Apr 30, 2006, 9:23:37 PM4/30/06

to

John Corliss <jcor...@fake.invalid> wrote in
news:125671t...@corp.supernews.com:

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features

> that one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion
> of nagware be considered on-topic in this group?

*no*

--
dee

Boco Merci

unread,

May 16, 2006, 8:55:45 AM5/16/06

to

John Corliss wrote:

> Please just answer yes or no. If you feel that discussion is called
> for, please start another thread.
>

> Question (rephrased): Except in the context of describing features
> that one is looking for in a freeware program, should discussion of
> nagware be considered on-topic in this group?

No

--