Deleted View Camera Thread?

[Kirk Gittings]

Did I miss something the last couple of hours? I am curious about the reasoning behind the deletion of the recent View Camera thread.
It states:

Reason: Advertisement - Falls outside the LF Forum guidelines.

How were Steve's statements fundamentally different than the Magnachrome threads? They are both for profit enterprises informing customers about their products.

And before you say I am biased, (because of my long relationship with VC and Steve Simmons) know that I have suggested story articles to Michael for Magnachrome. These suggestions led to the article in this issue about Allen Rumme by Eric Biggerstaff, both dear friends of mine.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Kirk,

I agree, what is the difference?

I like to see both be able to announce upcoming issues, seek input for articles and ask for submissions. Neither one posts subsciption prices or asks for people to subscribe.

Also, there are other threads that have been posted by companies, one that comes to mind is an announcement recently of a view camera adapter for a DSLR.

I don't think the deleted VC thread was any different than the current MAGNAchrom thread.

[roteague]

I agree with Kirk and Eric. There was no need to delete this thread, it should be reinstated.

FWIW, I don't know Steve Simmons, but frankly I'm tired of seeing the guy constantly hammered for petty reasons. The guy has been forthcoming, and is one of the biggest supporters of the LF community.

[Marko]

Maybe it was just an accident - the moderator could've seen the VC thread and thought "there we go again" and just hit the button without reading through?



As I said in the post on that thread that got deleted: there's been much less VC bashing and venom on that topic since the latest round of banning/leaving. In fact, there's been much less incivility since then overall, including the Lounge.

[BrianShaw]

I agree with Mr. Teague.

[naturephoto1]

I didn't see anything wrong with the deleted post either.

Rich

[MJSfoto1956]

I agree with all the above. Steve's post was just "informative" providing a table of contents for the next issue of VC, of which I am a long-time subscriber (in fact, I own every single issue of VC, even the very first one).

And for what it's worth, there ain't no profit yet in MAGNAchrom! (maybe next year)

But I *DO* find it interesting that he almost always posts "something" within hours of any post I make! (yes you could have waited a few days Steve, and the forum would have been all yours)

Cheers,

[Eric Rose]

I agree with Kirk and Eric. There was no need to delete this thread, it should be reinstated.

FWIW, I don't know Steve Simmons, but frankly I'm tired of seeing the guy constantly hammered for petty reasons. The guy has been forthcoming, and is one of the biggest supporters of the LF community.

Ditto in spades.

[Jim Jirka]

Both are fine publications. I don't know why it was deleted either. Seemed very tame in content to me.

If someone other than Steve posted the information, per guidelines, it would have stayed. Only the owner or other party that has monetary gain is not allowed to post items.

Worded as such in the guidelines.

[alec4444]

I agree as well. If the post had a link to a page on the view camera site to "Order Now" that's an ad. Both this and Magnachrome posts were not ads.

And no, it wasn't an accident with the "Advertisement - Falls outside the LF Forum guidelines." reason attached to it.

I'm always interested in the TOC for magazines such as this and others and I think it's fine for the editors to provide us with the contents. The moderators seem to have no problems with us battering the magazines when we feel fit to do so.....so how is a little positive feedback a bad thing?

--A