Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Ethical?

Apple?

Honest to goodness, I don't know what on earth you are even talking about. I can see you're trying to be nasty for some reason, but I have no idea what I could have done to offend you so badly.

Let's make a deal. You don't respond to my messages and I won't respond to yours.

How about it?

89th:

Hee!

Yes, you're right. S*** happens.

Here's something to raise your blood pressure, 89th. . . .

I still haven't backed up my computer.

Pretty irresonsible, no?

Cindy -- who will do it before this week

Jolly, I, too, would like some examples of what you're talking about. Because, if this is true, I couldn't agree with you more.

Wouldn't her acceptance of that deal simultaneously cause her to break it?

The 89th Key - who will come back up Cindy's computer this weekend if she doesn't do it soon! (No Tom, that wasn't a metaphorical statement )

TomK: As if clowns weren't already scary enough! Yikes!!!

Well, I'll come clean and reveal I was just thinking about PM'ing the avowed Harry Potter fans here and inviting them to a Harry Potter discussion group I know about.

But I guess that would be highly unethical . . . So I'd better not!

Bad Cindy, Bad Cindy!

I am responding Cindy because I wish to counterbalance what you've publicly written...

So, I guess there is no deal..at least on my part. I hope you understand.

89th:

**DOH!!**

Curses. Foiled again.

One is free to post on any free site that will have them. That is not my point. I explicitly stated that I used to romp around on Mr. Land's board a bit, and I've got a short post on rmmp right now.

My question was about the ethics of solicitation.

Nothing was said in my post about forum-support, or entitlement of those who do send Frank money for forum support.

If you'd like to wade through a few posts on the other board, please do so. EHpianist was the one that caught my eye. And to thoroughly absolve Elena, she may not have even referenced this board in particular - it may have been another she was talking about.

That does not change the essential premise of this thread-starter, however.

Ms. A happens to meet Ms. B at a quiet neighborhood restaurant. It's a nice restaurant that serves the kind of food they both enjoy. They both become regular patrons of this restaurant, as do a number of other people. Ms. A and Ms. B have a lot in common, so they tend to talk to each other quite frequently at this restaurant. The other regular patrons have similar personal affinities for one another, and also for the genial owner of the place.

As time passes, Ms. A and Ms. B, along with the whole consort of regular patrons become quite familiar with each other and feel comfortable in this restaurant. Ms. A happens to love the corned beef and Ms. B truly enjoys the dumplings. Then, things start happening with the supplies to the restaurant, things beyond the owner's control. Corned beef disappears from the menu, and the dumplings can only be had on Wednesdays.

Ms. A and Ms. B both continue to go to the restaurant, though, because they are comfortable there. Then, the restaurant is split into smoking and non-smoking sections, and tensions develop between the smokers and non-smokers. The restaurant becomes less and less conducive to the type of fellowship Ms. A and Ms. B enjoy, and neither can get the type of food they really like there anymore.

Ms. B suggests to Ms. A that they try a new restaurant down the street that serves corned beef and dumplings. That's your 'free market' at work. Is there something ethically amiss in this scenario? Do either Ms. A or Ms. B have any reason to keep going to the same old restaurant? Should they be harassed if they do? Should they feel guilty for going to another restaurant? Should the patrons at the old restaurant feel slighted? Answer these questions and you'll be better prepared to answer the issue of any ethical propriety.

(©2004 by Analogies "B" Us)

Yes, but several of us want to know the facts concerning this alleged solicitation. Will you or will you not provide them?

**A-HA!!** You just solicited me!

Was it good for you too?

Jolly-- are you saying that people on another forum are soliciting people on that forum to stay on that forum rather than come over here?

What's so unethical about that? That's not exactly what I would call a "solicitation."

On the other hand, maybe I'm not following you. If so, in the words of Emily Litella, "never mind."

Cindy, I would imagine what's bothering Apple is the same thing that's bothering me. I don't know if you simply ignore things, or if you purposely miss the point and argue an irrelevant tangent on purpose, or simply aren't capable of comprehending. It's one of the three, I just can't decide which one it is.

Take "free". I cannot believe you aren't smart enough to separate the distinct difference between free for you to use from free meaning the site costs nothing. In choosing to focus on the "free for you to use" aspect, you completely miss the entire point, and go off on a tangent. Then, in spite of your claims of "civility", you take a swipe at those you disagree with with your snide remark, "This sense of entitlement some here display is beyond nauseating." That's hardly being civil, but I suppose from the etherworld you have contorted your logic into, you have justified that one as well.

Then you hit us with your favorite little dodge, "Why don't you guys let Frank speak for himself for a change?" Are you of the opinion that Frank is the only one here with any common sense? Do you really not understand commerce, or are you purposely trying to create friction? Frank doesn't have to "speak" for thinking people to be able to understand the simple logic that this place is not free, or that the forums provide hit count to his website. This is "internet business 101", Cindy. If you really don't understand it, then stop taking swipes at people and let them educate you. If you *do* understand it, stop purposely trying to confuse the issue, and stop taking mean swipes at people and then standing back claiming to be an innocent victim. You were *not* "civil".

Well, that sure was personal. :rolleyes:

No, it wasn't personal. It was written in the same spirit of civility that Cindy's post was.

No, it was not.

Larry, your post had nothing whatever to do with the so-called ethics of people inviting others to join them at another internet forum. People can post where they want, and they can invite others to post anyplace they'd like. That anyone would find this objectionable (on the facts presented) means that person has an agenda or a control issue or something.

I mean, did you even read Matt's post?

And yes, I do think some folks here should stop acting as though they are devising and executing Frank's business plan. 'Cause they're not. And all they're doing is causing (more) trouble with a bunch of unsubstantiated paranoia. IMHO, of course.

I do think you should consider expressing your concerns about solicitation directly to Frank. Maybe he'd agree and would post a new rule or some such.

I don't think a rule needs to be made........ people should know better.

Fine, I'll never publicly or privately suggest that anyone go to another restaurant. I'll just go.

Larry, your post had nothing whatever to do with the so-called ethics of people inviting others to join them at another internet forum. People can post where they want, and they can invite others to post anyplace they'd like. That anyone would find this objectionable (on the facts presented) means that person has an agenda or a control issue or something.

Excuse me, but it had *everything* to do with it. To quote from my post:

"On the one hand, this is a non issue from the standpoint that no one "owns" a poster, and everyone is free to visit whatever site they wish to visit. They are also free to recommend another site if they choose. I don't see a problem with that at all."

I mean, did you even read Matt's post?

I wasn't addressing Matt's post. I was addressing your's.