Re: [abiword-dev] Cheeky F***ers, Negative Advertising.

From: Alan Horkan (horkana@maths.tcd.ie)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 12:52:25 EDT

  • Next message: Hubert Figuiere: "Re: PieceTable docs"

    On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, M. Fioretti wrote:

    > Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 17:46:26 +0200
    > From: M. Fioretti <m.fioretti@inwind.it>
    > To: AbiWord Developer Mailing List <abiword-dev@abisource.com>
    > Subject: Re: [abiword-dev] Cheeky F***ers, Negative Advertising.
    >
    > On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 16:48:12 at 04:48:12PM -0400, Leonard Rosenthol (leonardr@lazerware.com) wrote:
    > > At 02:56 PM 6/24/2003 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
    > > >Saw this while searching using Google and using Abiword as one of my
    > > >keywords
    > >
    > > Just remember folks like that everytime someone clicks on that
    > > link - that company has to pay Google...
    > >
    > > I bet you can click on it a LOT of times ;).

    > The fact that TextMaker is saying bad things of competitors came out

    I made a point of not naming them and giving them publicity.
    May as well name and shame them now.

    The real revenge will be Abiword 2.0

    > on the OpenOffice discuss list almost simultaneously. Eventually,

    I supsect it was posted by someone who is also quietly on abiword-dev list
    and to whom we are all very grateful to for his work on deciphering the
    msword file format.

    > almost everybody came to agree that the one above is a dumb,

    immature maybe, not dumb.

    > maybe illegal,

    I dont believe that for a second.

    Manually clicking on advertising they provided just could not be
    illegal.

    The probably only pay a fixed amount and when that is gone hopefully they
    will realise that they were just wasting their time with negative
    advertising.

    > immature idea, and an ineffective one anyway. Nothing

    Negative advertising is immature.
    I leave it to you to make your own decision of course but I dont think I
    will be taking the high moral ground on this one (one of the post on
    openoffice discuss suggested that this approach was beneath them/us).

    > personal, of course (I thought the same thing as you before listening
    > to the objections)
    >
    > For details, look for this thread:
    >
    > Subject: [discuss] google search for openoffice
    > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 15:25:36 +0100
    >
    > in the discuss@openoffice.org list at www.openoffice.org

    I would have appreciated it if you had posted the link at least to the
    search page of the archives. Here is a relevant post, i think it is at
    the start of the thread.
    http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?msgId=728283&listName=discuss

    Anyone else out there who is as at least as immature as I am please feel
    free to post this to Slashdot and cause real Distributed Denial of Service
    attack.

    Sincerely

    Alan Horkan



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 13:03:48 EDT