Stephen Russell wrote: > <http://tinyurl.com/y92cjjz> > > I read this yesterday and it caught my eye again today. > > Do you think that it benefits the consumer if the blogger now tells > you that they get paid by ABC company and you have to identify that as > WHY the reviews for ABC co are so good all the time? > > I use to review SW for our PCUG back in the 90s. If you wrote the > stroy you got to keep it if you wanted to. Granted it was a lot of > shareware and free ware at the time as well as a few big products. I > got to keep AMI Pro and thought that it was superior to all other WPs > at that time. I had used Ami Pro on the Commodore 128 and thought it was great too. > It was way ahead of M$ Word for large document use at > the time. Guessing that was 93-94? > > So what are your thoughts on transparency requirements on blogging? > Will it keep a few of the douche-bags out of the industry? Probably > not enough from MPOV > > I doubt it but bloggers are so not required to follow ANY rules now so what difference do you think it would make. As Monk would say, 'It's a jungle out there' and anything you take from the internet HAS to be resolved through various other sources to get any kind of opinions that maybe a little close to the real thing <G>.
_______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
