Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 18:13:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
452 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Morton writes:
> Come on Lar,
> I think we can all see the difference between posting a message saying XX
> parts now in my brinklink store, and a link to an image that shows a
> valuable building technique which also states in the image (and not in the
> original posting) that the parts are available at his bricklink store.
>
> It's just like making a posting about something, which as part of my
> signature block has a link to my Lego website, which in turn has a link to
> my bricklink store.
Which is why the original post, which had on topic aspects, got merely a
ribbing. I whould have hoped that Bram was enough of a thought leader to
connect the dots (where his purely market relatd followup should go) without
an explicit warning.
It was the followup, which had NO .trains related content, and which should
have been posted to ONLY the market groups, that got gentle guidance. At
THAT point Bram mischaracterised it as "yelling" which was a signal to me
that guidance wasn't working, so I shuffled it up, not wanting to brawl in
.trains which is a busy group nowadays.
If all of you saying that the entire thread was fine really think that, then
perhaps any market related advertising whatever is OK as long as one can
trace the append chain back to an on topic post.
But that's not my understanding of intent here. The intent is that if
something veers off topic, one should veer the place it gets posted to as
well. I would be (on one level) delighted to see market related stuff
welcome everywhere, I have plenty of things to advertise... But it's not and
on many many other levels I am quite glad of that.
But I really don't see that as an open question. Nor should it be.
No, this is fundamentally still an issue of how to give guidance and what to
do when it is spurned. Make no mistake, it was indeed spurned.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| I quite agree with Lar on the points he relates here (snippage aside). I myself have a vested interest in Lego marketing directly from TLC, but it would be absolutely inappropriate for me to make more than just the casual reference that I make at (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Nope, that's not what anyone is saying. There would have been a point reached where, had the replies continued, it should have been moved to wherever else if it had nothing to do with trains. It's like, hypothetically, RCX newsgroup, "Hey I'm (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| Come on Lar, I think we can all see the difference between posting a message saying XX parts now in my brinklink store, and a link to an image that shows a valuable building technique which also states in the image (and not in the original posting) (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
