At the Risk of Sounding Like A Broken Record

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

[no name 1]

How is it this VJer can advertise then???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69430

Blatant violation, no?

[rebeccajo 14]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

But I have no financial interest in it. As far as I am aware, only AW has a financial interest in it.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

But I have no financial interest in it. As far as I am aware, only AW has a financial interest in it.

Regardless, the site is for-profit. Any promotion of the site is promoting a for-profit site. VJ doesn't condone promotion of commercial services, at least I don't believe it does.

[rebeccajo 14]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

But I have no financial interest in it. As far as I am aware, only AW has a financial interest in it.

Regardless, the site is for-profit. Any promotion of the site is promoting a for-profit site. VJ doesn't condone promotion of commercial services, at least I don't believe it does.

I don't see anything in what I copied and pasted about not being allowed to discuss or recommend a for-profit site as long as I'm not benefiting financially.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ewok's the judge of what is and isn't in TOS. Just wanted to point out that promoting "that site" is different from promoting BE ... BE isn't about profit but "that site" is. BE's motives are "purer".

[rebeccajo 14]

Ewok's the judge of what is and isn't in TOS. Just wanted to point out that promoting "that site" is different from promoting BE ... BE isn't about profit but "that site" is. BE's motives are "purer".

Purity?

As for what is and isn't in the TOS - I see black words on a white background.

Edited May 23, 2007 by rebeccajo

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

It's his site. They're his TOS. They can change when he wants them to.

This site, like all sites, is private property. We post at his pleasure.

[rebeccajo 14]

It's his site. They're his TOS. They can change when he wants them to.

This site, like all sites, is private property. We post at his pleasure.

Apparently.

[William33 110]

From the VJ TOS:

"In the discussion forums you may discuss or recommend third-party Web sites, goods or services, so long as you have no financial interest in and receive no direct or indirect benefit from such Web sites, products or services, or the recommendation of such."

That site is for-profit.

Gupt,

Nearly all websites are for profit, including this one.... Have a look at the advertisements on top!

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Anyhow Diad I would love to discuss this and it is reallly no biggie to be honest. PM me directly as it is easier to address questions that way as things get off topic easily if not. Again AW and I are at peace on the greater issues and your comment was much more specific and loosely related. Again please PM me if you need more explanations. Sorry not to see this earlier as I just woke up. That is one of the reasons as well that PM'ing me is better because asking questions publically when the person is not there to reply causes a lot of off topic chatter which just makes it harder to then clear up.

[kitkat1 5]

Anyhow Diad I would love to discuss this and it is reallly no biggie to be honest. PM me directly as it is easier to address questions that way as things get off topic easily if not. Again AW and I are at peace on the greater issues and your comment was much more specific and loosely related. Again please PM me if you need more explanations. Sorry not to see this earlier as I just woke up. That is one of the reasons as well that PM'ing me is better because asking questions publically when the person is not there to reply causes a lot of off topic chatter which just makes it harder to then clear up.

If would lovely if you could simply address publicly -- here in the open forum -- why the link is still blocked since Diad is not the only one asking.

[rebeccajo 14]

Lovelier still if the filter were just turned off. It's silly.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

deleted

Edited May 23, 2007 by Gupt

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

How is it this VJer can advertise then???

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=69430

Blatant violation, no?

You are correct and I have asked them not to. They did not do it maliciosly so no harm no faul. In the future they will know better.