OxyCheq Wings

Gang,

I have the new OxyCheq wings in hand, and I have a limited number of them
available at a very reasonable introductory price.

30 and 45 pound single wings, and 50 and 70 pound lift double wings.

Ping me for more details.

Scott

www.selchie.com

"Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhoe7togn6hhae@corp.supernews.com...
> I have the new OxyCheq wings in hand, and I have a limited number of them
> available at a very reasonable introductory price.

Spam alert.

--
"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and you
dont care."
-Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003

>Subject: Re: OxyCheq Wings
>From: "James Goddard" news@earthwarelimited.com
>Date: 7/22/2003 6:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <oYaTa.11625$Zo.162364@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
>
>"Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vhoe7togn6hhae@corp.supernews.com...
>> I have the new OxyCheq wings in hand, and I have a limited number of them
>> available at a very reasonable introductory price.
>
>Spam alert.
>
>--
>"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and you
>dont care."
> -Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003
>
Please explain what you mean by very reasonable introductory prices, could you
give an example. For example a single tank wing. :<}

Dennis

"Den73740" <den73740@aol.comspamdump> wrote in message
news:20030722155938.07745.00000296@mb-m14.aol.com...
> >Subject: Re: OxyCheq Wings
> >From: "James Goddard" news@earthwarelimited.com
> >Date: 7/22/2003 6:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <oYaTa.11625$Zo.162364@dfw-read.news.verio.net>
> >
> >"Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:vhoe7togn6hhae@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I have the new OxyCheq wings in hand, and I have a limited number of
them
> >> available at a very reasonable introductory price.
> >
> >Spam alert.
> >
> >--
> >"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and you
> >dont care."
> > -Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003

Um, if I am not mistaken this is rec.scuba equipment, that was posted to
rec.scuba, no?

You will notice this was not posted anywhere else, including to rec.scuba.

> Please explain what you mean by very reasonable introductory prices, could
you
> give an example. For example a single tank wing. :<}

Sure, ping me : scottk at selchie dot com

Scott

"Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vhr8gujqco5i61@corp.supernews.com...
> > >"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and
you
> > >dont care."
> > > -Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003
>
> Um, if I am not mistaken this is rec.scuba equipment, that was posted to
> rec.scuba, no?

Actually rec.scuba.equipment has a charter which states: "Infrequent
advertisements from private individuals are acceptable but commercial
advertising is not." Rec.scuba's charter is either lost or never existed
or is implied (old argument) so technically it does allow ads.

Personally I'm not against commercial ads, yours included, if they are
infrequent, though I do prefer a warning such as AD: or FS: etc. So I'm not
really commenting on the add, just that I thought flaming MHK for doing the
same thing you are was a little hypocritical. It appears however that you
are operating under the impression that r.s.e is a "marketplace" group. I
do agree that if there were a rec.scuba.instruction or a
rec.scuba.marketplace that would be a better place for MHK ads, but such
groups do not exist. Unfortunately rec.scuba.marketplace was voted down in
1998.

James

"James Goddard" <news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote in message
news:HChTa.17072$Mc.1293054@newsread1.prod.itd.ear thlink.net...

> Actually rec.scuba.equipment has a charter which states: "Infrequent
> advertisements from private individuals are acceptable but commercial
> advertising is not." Rec.scuba's charter is either lost or never existed
> or is implied (old argument) so technically it does allow ads.

> Personally I'm not against commercial ads, yours included, if they are
> infrequent, though I do prefer a warning such as AD: or FS: etc. So I'm
not
> really commenting on the add, just that I thought flaming MHK for doing
the
> same thing you are was a little hypocritical. It appears however that you
> are operating under the impression that r.s.e is a "marketplace" group. I
> do agree that if there were a rec.scuba.instruction or a
> rec.scuba.marketplace that would be a better place for MHK ads, but such
> groups do not exist. Unfortunately rec.scuba.marketplace was voted down
in
> 1998.

My purpose for the post is two fold:

1) To get the word out that there are options.
2) That we have a better product for less money.

I am a diver, and have been contributing to these two rec.scuba groups since
around '97.

I dont post every friggin class I am trying to sell, nor do I post about the
gear I make and sell, most
of my biz comes from word of mouth.

We have an excellent product at a very fair price, and I think that serves
divers.

Wish I had this option way back when...

Scott

James,

Although he hardly needs any defense from me, Scott is a long-time
contributor to these newsgroups. In my recollection, he has never
before made any kind of commercial post here about the gear he makes.
In the past, he has only answered questions posted by others about his
stuff. Also, from what I've seen, there are plenty of people here who
are interested in what Scott has been up to recently and what his
newest products are -- myself included. Quite honestly, I don't really
consider the post that started this thread an advertisement, just
information.

Best,

-bob

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 21:01:27 GMT, "James Goddard"
<news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote:

>"Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:vhr8gujqco5i61@corp.supernews.com...
>> > >"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and
>you
>> > >dont care."
>> > > -Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003
>>
>> Um, if I am not mistaken this is rec.scuba equipment, that was posted to
>> rec.scuba, no?
>
>Actually rec.scuba.equipment has a charter which states: "Infrequent
>advertisements from private individuals are acceptable but commercial
>advertising is not." Rec.scuba's charter is either lost or never existed
>or is implied (old argument) so technically it does allow ads.
>
>Personally I'm not against commercial ads, yours included, if they are
>infrequent, though I do prefer a warning such as AD: or FS: etc. So I'm not
>really commenting on the add, just that I thought flaming MHK for doing the
>same thing you are was a little hypocritical. It appears however that you
>are operating under the impression that r.s.e is a "marketplace" group. I
>do agree that if there were a rec.scuba.instruction or a
>rec.scuba.marketplace that would be a better place for MHK ads, but such
>groups do not exist. Unfortunately rec.scuba.marketplace was voted down in
>1998.
>
>James
>

"James Goddard" <news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote:

> "Scott" <busted@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:vhr8gujqco5i61@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >"What you guys do is strictly against the rules here, you know it and
> you
> > > >dont care."
> > > > -Scott Koplin, while accusing MHK of spamming, June 19, 2003
> >
> > Um, if I am not mistaken this is rec.scuba equipment, that was posted to
> > rec.scuba, no?
>
> Actually rec.scuba.equipment has a charter which states: "Infrequent
> advertisements from private individuals are acceptable but commercial
> advertising is not." Rec.scuba's charter is either lost or never existed
> or is implied (old argument) so technically it does allow ads.

Correction on that last line: rec.scuba functionally prohibits
commercial advertisements.

By the narrowest possible interpretation, there is no official charter,
which means that rec.scuba is still operating under the policies in
effect 15+ years ago, which means that no traffic is allowed to be
commercial, because USENET was Government-funded.

A more reasonable interpretation takes into account the charter vote
from the 1990's, which gets complicated. In a nutshell, charters were
written for r.s, r.s.l and r.s.e. The latter two received majority
votes with the necessary "supermajority" to justify their creation,
which happened.

The specific proposal for r.s also included a proposed a name change to
"rec.scuba.misc", which would have moved all traffic down a tier. This
proposal received a majority vote, but not a supermajority vote, so the
name change was not implimented. Further discussions then took take
place to interpret what this vote meant for the Charter portion of the
proposal. The opinion of the newsgroup experts (not here, but over on
the SysAdmin group who "runs" RFD's/CFV's from news.groups) was that
under the circumstances, they considered the Charter to have been
approved, given that the proposal did receive at least a simple
majority. Reasonable people accept this, but people who don't like the
ruling choose to instead point to the fact that its not locked down in
ironclad terms.

Because of the stubborness of the latter, I've publically offered a few
times to volunteer to run a RFV/CFV whose explicit purpose is to
formally go through the procedures of adopting that Charter and
eliminate this source of ambiguity. This offer stands. To date,
there's never been enough perceived urgency/need by the readership to
encourage "doing the paperwork" to pursue such an action.


BTW, it was also observed that the "lessons learned" was that future
proposals should anticipate such situations in the future and split up
proposals to prevent "betweeners" like this from recurring.





> I do agree that if there were a rec.scuba.instruction or a
> rec.scuba.marketplace that would be a better place for MHK ads, but such
> groups do not exist. Unfortunately rec.scuba.marketplace was voted down in
> 1998.

FYI, rec.scuba.marketplace exists on some servers as a "rogue" group.
Just like how some people don't respect Charters and post commercial ads
anyway, some people didn't respect the CFV results, and falsified group
creation commands, which were picked up by some ISP's. So technically,
it is around for MHK to use. But most people don't use it because it
doesn't get eyeballs: rec.scuba.marketplace has had only 13 posts so
far for the year. For example, here's a simplified header list:

1,000,000 FREE VISITORS ON YOUR SITE! 7/16/03 8:43 PM
WWW.WWWISHES.COM 6/23/03 7:40 AM
Imagine! 6/19/03 2:29 AM
Maui Calendars... 6/17/03 12:00 PM
DIVE CHARTER BOAT FOR SALE 6/11/03 4:51 PM
Scuba gear 4 sale 5/20/03 11:11 PM
FS: scuba gear 5/18/03 10:14 AM
FS: 2003 ScubaPro Knighthawk bouyancy compensator 3/12/03 10:56 PM
WANTED: Uwatec Wrist Stap(s) 3/3/03 1:49 AM
Free Scuba Email Account 2/23/03 2:18 PM
5mm wetsuit 1/21/03 12:08 PM
Brilliant mounting system 1/10/03 12:37 PM

Note that the top three most recent are pure spam. Yum.



-hh

"H. Huntzinger" <recscuba@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:recscuba-85CEA9.06585423072003@east.giganews.com...
> > Actually rec.scuba.equipment has a charter which states: "Infrequent
> > advertisements from private individuals are acceptable but commercial
> > advertising is not." Rec.scuba's charter is either lost or never
existed
> > or is implied (old argument) so technically it does allow ads.
>
> Correction on that last line: rec.scuba functionally prohibits
> commercial advertisements.
>
> By the narrowest possible interpretation, there is no official charter,
> which means that rec.scuba is still operating under the policies in
> effect 15+ years ago, which means that no traffic is allowed to be
> commercial, because USENET was Government-funded.
>
> A more reasonable interpretation takes into account the charter vote
> from the 1990's, which gets complicated. In a nutshell, charters were
> written for r.s, r.s.l and r.s.e. The latter two received majority
> votes with the necessary "supermajority" to justify their creation,
> which happened.
>
> The specific proposal for r.s also included a proposed a name change to
> "rec.scuba.misc", which would have moved all traffic down a tier. This
> proposal received a majority vote, but not a supermajority vote, so the
> name change was not implimented. Further discussions then took take
> place to interpret what this vote meant for the Charter portion of the
> proposal. The opinion of the newsgroup experts (not here, but over on
> the SysAdmin group who "runs" RFD's/CFV's from news.groups) was that
> under the circumstances, they considered the Charter to have been
> approved, given that the proposal did receive at least a simple
> majority. Reasonable people accept this, but people who don't like the
> ruling choose to instead point to the fact that its not locked down in
> ironclad terms.

Actually, IMHO, the latter is right. The CFV clearly had a chater for
"rec.scuba.misc". As this group was not voted in, it takes a fairly
creative intpretation to say that the charter for the group that failed
would automaticly transfer to an existing group.

> Because of the stubborness of the latter, I've publically offered a few
> times to volunteer to run a RFV/CFV whose explicit purpose is to
> formally go through the procedures of adopting that Charter and
> eliminate this source of ambiguity. This offer stands. To date,
> there's never been enough perceived urgency/need by the readership to
> encourage "doing the paperwork" to pursue such an action.

The paperwork is not very difficult. The problem is that there is a fairly
large group of people out there who vote no on any newsgroup proposal just
for the hell of it. This body is large enough that to get anything past a
CFV takes a farily overwelming desire to see the change. The process is
designed to fail to avoid the 50k+ newsgroups we see in the alt heirchary.

> BTW, it was also observed that the "lessons learned" was that future
> proposals should anticipate such situations in the future and split up
> proposals to prevent "betweeners" like this from recurring.

I am fully aware of the history of this and the arguments it has generated.
This is why I described it as "either lost or never existed or is implied",
rather than re-hash old arugments by giving my personal opinion. The fact
is that without an actual charter to point to, it really comes down to a
matter of opinion. While I agree that the original usenet policies govern,
that is of little use because no ISP is going to take any action without a
real charter.

> > I do agree that if there were a rec.scuba.instruction or a
> > rec.scuba.marketplace that would be a better place for MHK ads, but such
> > groups do not exist. Unfortunately rec.scuba.marketplace was voted down
in
> > 1998.
>
> FYI, rec.scuba.marketplace exists on some servers as a "rogue" group.
> Just like how some people don't respect Charters and post commercial ads
> anyway, some people didn't respect the CFV results, and falsified group
> creation commands, which were picked up by some ISP's. So technically,
> it is around for MHK to use.

I get Usenet through Google, Earthlink, and Nuvox. None of these major
sources carry such a group so I would say it's not really an option.

James

James,

I suspect that many who frequent these newsgroups would agree that
Scott has more than earned his right to express his opinions here. He
has been a very valuable contributor as well a back bone of this
circus. I'm sure Scott and I don't always agree, but I shall continue
to read and enjoy his posts.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:44:49 -0500, "James Goddard"
<news@earthwarelimited.com> wrote:

<snip>
>I hope that they are not
>burdened with the problems Halcyon has had with their wings.

Since you mentioned it, I have both Halcyon Explorer and Pioneer wings
that are going on 4 years old. They have had a lot of hard use under
some pretty rough conditions, and they have been absolutely flawless.
I have nothing but good things to say about Halcyon wings.

With the new Oxycheq line, having another source of high-quality wings
available hopefully will prove to be a good thing for all of us.

Best,

-bob