[Addicted To LAW]

BykrByb, replies are made when possible. We have to be made a aware if there is a need for a reply. This is one of the reasons why we try to encourage readers to post comments on our main site. In order to properly manage replies.

But thank you for at least saying what you said in a nice manner :) Addicted to LAW just learned about FR and we are looking for ways to incorporate FR into our workflow. I’m sure you are aware FR viewer base beats us by X to the 100th power. So we need to properly evaluate such growth so we don’t seem like a post and run shop.

Please feel free to contact me directly if you have any further questions, concerns or feedback at addictedtolaw [ at ] me.com. I thank you and all the other FP’rs for their comments and support. Now to find the one that I should have had the courtesy to return the comment on.

Carlos Rafael Cruz
Addicted to Law.com

[Clinging Bitterly]

...we try to encourage readers to post comments on our main site. In order to properly manage replies.

This forum isn't here to support YOUR blog, rather it is for members of THIS forum to discuss among OURSELVES whatever content is posted HERE, and when you post here, you don't MANAGE the replies.

When you post your content here and don't otherwise participate (as it was with your first two posts) it appears, y'know, that you're just pimpin' your blog.

Posting content here from one's own blog seems to be OK if done in a not so blatant way. We have more than a few FReepers who do that, but if you do it just for the sake of baiting hits for the money, you'll likely become ground meat.

[mountainbunny]

You wrote: ...replies are made when possible. We have to be made a aware if there is a need for a reply. This is one of the reasons why we try to encourage readers to post comments on our main site. In order to properly manage replies.

What, in your experience, tells you that it is morally and/or ethically correct to lead traffic away from this site using someone else's money, bandwidth and effort?

My sense of ethics tells me that that is really, really wrong. Why doesn't yours?