Scameron
When I corrected your misconception I expected a mature response, an accurate basis on which to discuss what you clearly believe is an important issue. I thought the stage might be illuminated. Instead you obscure the issue with a petulant, broad personal attack and attack on my posts, with wildly inaccurate comments.
How can I advertise my employer who I don't mention? How can I be taking a thread off topic by pointing out a flaw in the first post, that defines the topic? Why is it pedantic to point out a completely flawed argument that you are making? Why is some past slight you have taken at a disagreement relevant?
I can't see how you feel vindicated when the only person with actual experience of the issue you put appears to disagree with you. Genghis's post at the very least suggests your conclusion is too strongly put (correct me if I am wrong, Genghis).
Why should advertisers demand editorial influence in one medium in which they advertise, when they keenly advertise in another and do not? The existence of an editor is irrelevant to that issue if he is as those Geghis mentions, and simply wnats to ensure criticsim is correct.
Why do you make up things to attack me with? I never said anything about 95% of the readership flying. Is your whole argument this dishonest? I don't believe it is, but you do yourself no favours trying to discredit me that way.
This is all starting to look very personal. You say we have disagreed before. That may be the case, I don't remember, but that is not a reason I would disagree with you now - I often support people I have disagreed with on different issues. You may have taken it personally, I have not, and do not even remember specifically any issue you might have posted on.
Right to put it simply, and try to get back to the potentially interesting topic of hte thread: the issue was not that you failed to mention the classifieds, that, as you rightly say, goes without saying. The issue is that you
do place great emphasis on adverts among the articles of certain magazines for the industry in which I work. My main point is that they very rarely place adverts in that section of the press, so those argruments are given far too much emphasis. Nearly all advertising for this business is in the classified section.
Our potential clients don't make decisions based on a chance find of an advert while reading a magazine. They look for the adverts, even (as I did on the only occasion I bought any of thoise titles) buying the magazine primarily for the adverts. Why would we pay a premium for space in the main section?
What you mentioned wasn't "...the same rule" at all, please do me the courtesy of reading my argument. The rule you had been talking about and I had been arguing against was the requirement for articles opposite an advert, not that people try to sell advertising space (not sure how that is not legitimate
). This cannot apply in the classifieds, as there are no articles there in the magazines you mentioned!
OBA is a different issue entirely. There are legal issues that we all know have taken up a lot of time for the PPRuNe management, the reluctance may have little to do with advertising. Writing an article implicitly backed by the editor is a lot different from having a forum member post his or her own thoughts. Knowing the school, and noting the comments of others, I don't even see it as a special case for a critical article, so see no strong pressure for the magazines to risk legal action. I would not criticise it beyond any other school that wished to teach people for a UK licence outside the UK with a similar course structure. Personally I also believe they are one school that would not remove the advert anyway. Do you think they leave it there just to stop adverse comment? They must be getting business out of it, and they do a lot of business.