Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 22:24:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
533 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, David Koudys writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 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.
>
> 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.
That point is the first purely market oriented post. Even if it's a direct
reply or followup to a post... Bram's followup to his original post was
market related, pure and simple, and nothing else.
> Well, I've gone off enuf this time, and I'm quite confident that this issue
> is now resolved to the betterment of LUGNET in general.
I'm not. I saw a lot of whinging by you but no resolution or constructive
suggestions.
> Dave
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) There is a time, in everyone's life, where your rules for governing your own life come back and bite you in the heinie. My thick skin aside... Bram didn't start this ruckus. Quoteth Larry " (...) " Constructive suggestion #1, from the above (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
