Originally Posted by
FallenPlat
Well, apparently EC wasn't clear enough for some of you.
So I'll be clear. This particular corner of Flyer Talk -- and by that I mean here plus the OMAAT forum -- has really become more than slightly nasty, personal and unhelpful.
Yeah, I get it. It's ok if it's in Rolling Stone so why not here?
Fine. So now here's something I'd respectfully ask all of you to get: this isn't Rolling Stone. It's just not. And it never will be. Some of you might be thinking, "Well, that's too bad"; others, "Thank goodness!"
Either way, the answer is still the same. This isn't Rolling Stone.
(Full disclosure: I've never met Ben or Gary; I'm not friends with them; and I rather seriously doubt I'd ever want to be.)
I guess you were directing this at me. There is no need to be snarky - my pointing out that
eponymous_coward misread
kokonutz's meaning, and my disagreement with EC's premise, doesn't mean I do not understand EC's post.
For one thing, as
nsx noted, the dropoff in VFTW posting here came before EM&P forum ever existed. For another, as I correctly surmised, kokonutz was not commenting on the lack of VFTW participation in this forum specifically, which is what
eponymous_coward was incorrectly assuming in the post.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough - nowhere did I say this is Rolling Stone nor should be. Rather, EC's implication that content on this forum violates FT rules by being unduly "personal", is misdirected. The examples EC notes are things the blogger has himself disclosed in the RS article and to an extent on his blog. These aren't made-up items, personal information dug up on an anonymous FT user, or name-calling but information voluntarily discussed by a public figure.
And despite EC pointing out the salacious items, there is a fair discussion going on about points raised by the RS article regarding OMAAT.
ec, they stopped posting anywhere on FT years before this forum was created. And for what it's worth I like both of them.
Originally Posted by
kokonutz
Indeed. And I suppose that since I have been on the TB for several years and even the VP of the TB, my FF expert CV ranks right up there with the Thought Leader's!
Precisely. I get why they don't want to participate here: this forum competes directly with their comments sections for page impressions. And if you look at the first few pages of this thread Gary did participate...but it never went the way he wanted.
But Gary posted what could have been a post in reply to bedleman's thread in the
AA forum as a blog post instead. IOW, he had to repost the thread OP, then offer his opinion on his blog rather than simply offering his opinion on bedleman's thread.
And i get why: $$$/thought leaderyness.
And also, he is not bound by the limits of the FT TOS on his blog and he did use the occasion to take some personal shots at the OP of that AA forum thread, including disclosing lots of personal information about him...
If folks don't like the blog discussion here, I sure hope they never read the comments sections of those blogs where negative feedback and criticism is much less restrained and in many cases not even censored by the blogger. These aren't hobbyists blogging from their den in their spare time - these are for-profit commercial ventures. As with any company, if they don't expect feedback and criticism, they shouldn't be in business.
I think it's especially fair to criticize two of the most successful ventures that got where they are in large part through FT, who highlight that background in their bios, but make a point of ignoring the community now. I don't expect that either of them care, which is fine, but it is what it is.
And it's silly to think that VFTW's partnership in MilePoint doesn't factor largely into the lack of participation on FT as well. That's understandable, but certainly fair game to point out as well.
For that matter, FT members who don't find this forum useful are free to ignore it.