|
Wed, Jun 25, 14 at 12:37
| I just received a " Friendly reminder" from GW re my " gossipy question "post, informing me NOT to post OT subjects on this side. First time I ever heard such a thing. Really ? Not allowed? Seems nuts, especially here on Rose forum, where Conversations is so inactive. Oh nooooo, not the teacup ride! ;) |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| No I didn't they do them all the time on the antique forum. I enjoyed the thread myself. I'm not old enough on here to remember anything, but I still enjoyed the thread. |
|
| Ask them why. It seemed about the rose forum itself, which is legitimate, I would think, but I could be wrong. |
|
| If there's a thread I'm not interested I just don't read it. But I don't have any objections to people posting threads about subjects I'm not interested in. I hate the thought police... |
|
- Posted by bunnicula03 z6b NJ (My Page) on Wed, Jun 25, 14 at 18:11
| I didn't think your post was off topic, or inappropriate. I think the title, though, caught their eye and made them think otherwise. |
|
- Posted by annececilia z5a/N.Michigan (My Page) on Thu, Jun 26, 14 at 21:49
| So if the powers that be thought it so necessary to move our conversation on old members of this forum over to conversations (which I see that they did) why don't they bother to help out some of those newbie posters who post their rose questions on the conversations forum - where they'll never be seen or answered - by moving those over here? Seems like that would be a lot more productive interference. Just sayin'. |
|
| Do remember that this is not a public forum--GW can set whatever parameters it wishes because it "owns" it. Over the years, they have tended to discourage conversations that include the topic of banned posters. On the other hand, I was a bit surprised to see a "gossipy" thread on this forum. Those usually do appear over on the Conversation side. Not that I personally care much, one way or another, however. Kate |
This post was edited by dublinbay on Fri, Jun 27, 14 at 11:11
|
| I wonder if the ban on a certain California grower still exists? Long after 'Spike' sold GW (Spike loathed that grower because Spike thought that the grower was trying to publicize his selling roses in his signature line, which he was), any mention of that grower still set off bells and whistles and got zapped, fast. |
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Roses Forum
Information about Posting
- You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
- We have a strict no-advertising policy!
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.
Learn more about in-text links on this page here
