| |
I thought you weren't going to debate this?
In lugnet.admin.general, Eric Joslin writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> > What I WILL dispute is that any of these are flogs. Unless you define a flog
> > as the mere mention of something commercial, that is, which is a definition
> > I dispute. Strongly.
>
> Unfortunately, you aren't the one who gets to define "flog" here.
Granted, but I do get to question the definition and point out where I think
it's awry. Which is what I'm doing.
> Todd is, and
> he weighed in and agreed that it seemed to be a flog.
And Todd never changes his mind? Seemed to be != is, necessarily.
> So, accept that the post
> in question was considered to be a flog,
So stipulated that it was identified as such but not that it actually is.
> and probably shouldn't have been made
> in the form and group it was made in.
Doesn't yet follow.
> Besides, let's take apart what you posted, shall we?
>
> From: http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=10097
>
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.trains, Steven Barile writes:
>
> > > Thanks, and now can we discuss something else like... who built a killer
> > > train out of all these bulk packs we've been begging for for the last 3
> > > years!
> >
> > Well, since you asked. Twice, no less...
> >
> > I did. (1) Here you go:
> >
> > http://www.miltontrainworks.com/item_info.html#MTW-3002-bu
> >
> > How do I know it's killer? I'm almost out of my first production run
> > already... But then what else would you expect from Milton Train Works,
> > *the* premier custom train kit purveyor?? Other people may have released
> > models before I did (2), other people may have released models that cost
> > less(3), but no one has a better or broader train product range. Not even
> > LEGO(r). At least not yet anyway.
>
> Can you explain how the following bits:
>
> > But then what else would you expect from Milton Train Works,
> > *the* premier custom train kit purveyor??
One definition of a killer model is that it comes from a killer source. This
brag is defending in advance the possible assertion that the source isn't
killer.
> and
>
> > Other people may have released
> > models before I did (2), other people may have released models that cost
> > less(3), but no one has a better or broader train product range. Not even
> > LEGO(r). At least not yet anyway.
Ditto. Further, this is an attempt to support the assertion that the TLC
model range isn't that great at this point and the custom builders as a
group, and me specifically, are hitting the target market better than TLC
does. And that supports the assertion that the doodlebug is a killer model
worthy of, dare I say it, adulation.
> are an answer, in any way, to a question about "killer models" rather than a
> flog for your items for sale?
See above.
> > Are we going to ban any mention of things commercial, no matter how passing,
> > no matter the context, in any group that doesn't have market somewhere in
> > its name? That would be wrong.
>
> Why? If I had something for sale, I would respect the hierarchy of discussion
> and simply refrain from posting it where people who possibly had no interest >in
> seeing it wouldn't. Posting a major flog in a non-market group is no less
> annoying than a cold sales call.
I would agree with that. For straight flogs, anyway. But as I said, every
single one of my postings that happened to mention, in passing, models that
I happen to have for sale... every single one wasn't a flog, much less a
straight flog.
As I said in a part you snipped, I consider this point the most important
one in this debate. Mentioning something is NOT flogging it, in and of
itself. Banning the mere mention of things restricts discussion unnecesarily
and can cost the community significant advancement.
> > - I don't deliberately push the rules envelope, I just have stuff I want to
> > share, I am terribly busy and don't have as much time to do elaborate sites
> > as I might like, so I share it as soon as I can.
>
> Wasn't this "I don't have enough time" defense thouroughly shot down the last
> time someone complained about your flogging habits?
No. Because I don't flog, so you need to say "alleged flogging habits", and
because it wasn't shot down.
Hope that helps. If this is getting you worked up, you may want to just
ignore it till it comes to some resolution.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) I either lied or changed my mind. You decide. (...) Todd has been known to chance his mind, yes. Until he does, let's agree that by his definition, this was a flog. He said so in (URL) Lehman wrote: (...) Since Todd's definition is pretty much (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Flogs, flogging, floggers, brags, bragging, braggers
|
| (...) Unfortunately, you aren't the one who gets to define "flog" here. Todd is, and he weighed in and agreed that it seemed to be a flog. So, accept that the post in question was considered to be a flog, and probably shouldn't have been made in the (...) (23 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.admin.terms)
|
33 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
|
|
|
|
