Interesting article on AskMen.com

[Jones]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
AskMen.com, an awesome site for men (if you ask me)

came out with an article on a pheromone product today. I checked out the products website and it really doesn\'t

say what is in it... but it is an odorless spray. I am not endorsing this product at all... just thought it would

be interesting for us to read.

[Link Deleted]

Josh

<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

Its a good thing dis-allowing freedom of speech, or the freedome to post articles, is

good for business.

[jimhoff]

I

did not/do not think that Pherx is a good deal. In fact, I too thought it was a joke, but was simply trying to

bring about some interesting info. Sorry for posting the link. I did not intend for it to be a conflict.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

The Newbie....

J

[Pancho1188]

One comment on here didn\'t sit well with me...

First of all, Bruce can do whatever he wants. It\'s his

forum, he pays the bill so we can educate each other on pheromones or in this case discuss every option available to

us, he can do whatever the hell he feels like doing. I\'m surprised he puts up with what he does sometimes.

He\'s never taken down a posting that said, \"This stuff is snake oil and doesn\'t work. Bye.\" Yes, there

have been a couple of those (not so exaggerated), and to my knowledge they\'re still there.

Secondly, freedom

of speech is a government thing and in my opinion not complete by any means. If I said I wanted to commit a

horrible crime or perform a violent act on a high-profile figure, I\'d be arrested. If that person was high

enough, I\'d be in serious trouble. In other words, freedom of speech is only \'guaranteed\' by the

government, and even then it has its limits.

Thirdly, if I owned a site, I wouldn\'t want to be advertising my

competition. To hell with them, let them fend for themselves. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Many businessmen do list alternative stores if they don\'t have what you need, but they never tell you just to go

check competitors\' products. On top of this, Love-scent seems to be the best all-around, anyway, concerning

guarantees, prices, and quality. If you want to find something better, it\'s called a SEARCH ENGINE. Type in

\'pheromones\' and see what you get. That\'ll get you plenty of other sites as well, and you don\'t need

links on this forum to competitors to make it worse.

Finally, I do agree that this link in particular was to an

article and NOT to a competitor\'s site, but the article was reviewing a competitor\'s product and giving

favorable remarks. That\'s a grey area, and I think I might actually side with the poster that it was an article

and not a competitor\'s site, but since the article reviewed a competitor\'s product and had nothing to do with

Bruce\'s products, I can see why the moderator made such a decision.

So there you have it. TMI on how Bruce

has every right to do whatever the hell he wants but is pretty fair overall despite this fact.

I don\'t know

why I felt the need to write this, but I get the itch to preach occasionally...

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[belgareth]

Pancho1188:

Your statement about sums it up. I am glad to see that some of the forum members understand about

both forum policy and the so-called freedom of speech. Thanks for posting it.

[tounge]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
One comment on here didn\'t sit well with

me...



Secondly, freedom of speech is a government thing and in my opinion not complete by any means. If I

said I wanted to commit a horrible crime or perform a violent act on a high-profile figure, I\'d be arrested. If

that person was high enough, I\'d be in serious trouble. In other words, freedom of speech is only

\'guaranteed\' by the government, and even then it has its limits.

Pancho, I agree with most of

what you said. However, the goverment of the United States does not guarantee freedom of speech. It is a

Constitutional right. Part of the 1st amendment. As with all rights, it bears with it, certain

resposibilities.

I don\'t mean to nit pick, but the understanding of civics in the US today is apalling.

[Jones]

Censorship is the issue. I am not interesting in debating the interworkings of certain goverment laws on our

freedoms; it is simply fact that the people\'s liberties are only taken away to the extent which the people allow

it to be done.


If bruce feels that this product was inferior, then the link would have posed no risk.

The is a message board, supoorted by someone, yes. So is the New York Times, but we hope they do not censor stories

at there disgression.


Removing a link to an article because it had a favorable review of another product

is laughable; [sarcasm] the only logical conclusion is that the censor must really have something to fear

[/sarcasm]. You cant have it both ways.

[belgareth]

You don\'t think the New York Times censors what it prints? That\'s pretty simplistic.

Actually, this is

a discussion board. What you think you should have the right to do is similar to visiting a club and handing out

fliers describing a competitor\'s product, then complaining when they won\'t let you. It\'s fine to mention a

competitor or even discuss them but the moment you started handing out fliers, you stepped over the line of

reasonable behavoir. No business would allow that.

[Pancho1188]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font

class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
One comment on here didn\'t sit well with me...



Secondly, freedom of

speech is a government thing and in my opinion not complete by any means. If I said I wanted to commit a horrible

crime or perform a violent act on a high-profile figure, I\'d be arrested. If that person was high enough, I\'d

be in serious trouble. In other words, freedom of speech is only \'guaranteed\' by the government, and even

then it has its limits.

Pancho, I agree with most of what you said. However, the goverment of the

United States does not guarantee freedom of speech. It is a Constitutional right. Part of the 1st amendment. As

with all rights, it bears with it, certain resposibilities.

I don\'t mean to nit pick, but the understanding of

civics in the US today is apalling.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

I know what you mean.

That\'s why the word \'guaranteed\' was in quotes because I was being a little sarcastic there. It is a basic

right that does require responsibility on the citizen\'s part. Many extremists think that it protects them from

everything, when all it does is stop the government from holding your bad opinion of the president or your preaching

of a certain viewpoint against you. Also, I understand you being nitpicky, but I was not referring to the US

government but any government that protects the rights of the people. There are too many countries represented here

to be ignorant and assume everybody loves and follows the USA... Although I love the US, I know we\'re not the

best at everything and also know Franki would kick my behind if I said otherwise.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Grrr... I have to stop being defensive... It\'s a character

flaw. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[franki]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I know we\'re not the best at everything and

also know Franki would kick my behind if I said otherwise. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]





<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Holmes]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
when all it does is stop the government from

holding your bad opinion of the president or your preaching of a certain viewpoint against you.

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

...though this administration would change that pesky detail if it could.

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]


Holmes

[tounge]

I

hear ya Holmes. Hillery\'s administration did their damndest to try.

[CptKipling]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
One comment on here didn\'t sit well with

me...

First of all, Bruce can do whatever he wants. It\'s his forum, he pays the bill so we can educate each

other on pheromones or in this case discuss every option available to us, he can do whatever the hell he feels like

doing. I\'m surprised he puts up with what he does sometimes. He\'s never taken down a posting that said,

\"This stuff is snake oil and doesn\'t work. Bye.\" Yes, there have been a couple of those (not so

exaggerated), and to my knowledge they\'re still there.

Secondly, freedom of speech is a government thing and

in my opinion not complete by any means. If I said I wanted to commit a horrible crime or perform a violent act on

a high-profile figure, I\'d be arrested. If that person was high enough, I\'d be in serious trouble. In other

words, freedom of speech is only \'guaranteed\' by the government, and even then it has its limits.

Thirdly,

if I owned a site, I wouldn\'t want to be advertising my competition. To hell with them, let them fend for

themselves. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Many businessmen do list alternative stores if they

don\'t have what you need, but they never tell you just to go check competitors\' products. On top of this,

Love-scent seems to be the best all-around, anyway, concerning guarantees, prices, and quality. If you want to find

something better, it\'s called a SEARCH ENGINE. Type in \'pheromones\' and see what you get. That\'ll get

you plenty of other sites as well, and you don\'t need links on this forum to competitors to make it

worse.

Finally, I do agree that this link in particular was to an article and NOT to a competitor\'s site, but

the article was reviewing a competitor\'s product and giving favorable remarks. That\'s a grey area, and I

think I might actually side with the poster that it was an article and not a competitor\'s site, but since the

article reviewed a competitor\'s product and had nothing to do with Bruce\'s products, I can see why the

moderator made such a decision.

So there you have it. TMI on how Bruce has every right to do whatever the hell

he wants but is pretty fair overall despite this fact.

I don\'t know why I felt the need to write this, but I

get the itch to preach occasionally... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

<hr

/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Well said.

[Holmes]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
I hear ya Holmes. Hillery\'s administration did

their damndest to try.

<hr /></blockquote><font class=\"post\">

Yup, Hilary. How she wielded that Phase

plasma rifle in 40-watt range.


Holmes

[oscar]

To

those who believe that the link that I deleted was to an \"article\", please check the fine print.
If you go to

askmen.com and do a search for \"pheromones\" you\'ll find a list of links to so-called articles \"reviewing\"

products.

Strangely it seems all of the most recently published articles on pheromones are about PherX, who just

so happens to be an askmen advertising client.

If you took the time to read everything including the fine print,

you\'ll see that every review that mentions PherX favorably has a disclaimer line at the top or bottom (or both)

that states, \"This article is brought to you in part by Pherx.com\".

If one goes further to examine

askmen\'s policy on sponsored \"articles\", one finds that the article that is ostensibly being presented as an

unbiased review is in fact COMMISSIONED by the ADVERTISER.

Thus the link that I deleted was one that led to an

ADVERTISEMENT, NOT an ARTICLE in the sense that I see it being argued above.

I stand by my decision.

Oscar

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Pancho1188]

Good call. I hate those fake \'articles\' that are really advertisements. One sleazy trick after another...

Way to exploit those mofos... [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jimhoff]

Ok. Since I am the source of this thread, I am going to talk about how I feel now.

First of all, I did not

intend to promote or endorse the Pherx product. Since I am a newbie, I did not know that it would be frowned upon

to do such a thing. It was an innocent post.

Now, Love-Scent.com is a top of the line resource for anyone who is

interested in, or curious about any form of pheromone information. Both the information on this site, and the

products offered for sale are superior to most, if not all others offered on the web. This is the conclusion that I

have come to through my limited research during the past few weeks. In fact, I stumbled upon this site rather

quickly when I first became interested in mones. As an individual who is both new to pheromones, and inquisitive by

nature, I though I would just start posting with my questions and random information that I found on the web. I

thought that it might be beneficial to both other new members and seasoned ones to do so. I am a firm believer that

you can never learn enough. So, I do not regret posting the thread or the link.

With that being said, we all

know that Love-Scent is a top notch site, with top shelf products and so the owners/creators should not be so upset

to welcome a post which is simply attempting to show that there was an interesting article on another site...

actually promoting the use of pheromones. I was excited to see that and is why I initially posted the link. On the

other hand, if I were a business owner, I would not allow solicitation of other businesses around my customers, if

that were the intention of the individuals. It depends on how you look at it. One, if you are so confident in your

products, you should welcome the promotions of other \"inferior\" products. This will in the end be beneficial

for business because word of mouth will spread that the competitor is crap and they should come to you for the real

deal. No this won\'t immediately impact sales, but will in the long run. Second, to the best of my knowledge,

most people out there either aren\'t familliar with or have no idea about pheromones. I would be encouraged that

the market were to be getting more exposure, and with word of mouth being that my product was the best around, I

would be confident that people will be eventually be led to my arena.
I could go on and on, but I am kind of

rambling....

Peace,

Josh

[belgareth]

Josh

I don\'t think anybody is upset with you about posting that link. You did it unknowingly and who can be

angry about that? It may or may not benefit Bruce in the long run to allow the posting of other sites here. It has

caused him problems in the past. So he decided it would not be a good idea to allow it. It falls under the once

burned philosophy. I hope you can understand his point of view.

Belgareth

[jimhoff]

I

understand completely. Thanks!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Pancho1188]

Yeah, man. You\'ve got it right. Educate yourself and others. Search for answers and for what\'s best for

you. Kudos for being a go-getter (I just wanted to say \'Kudos\').

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Hope you post more and keep searching for what works for you.

[jimhoff]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[jvkohl]

Minimally, the -rone -none question makes it clear that the writer\'s knowledge is questionable, which reaks of

mindless advertising. I\'ve also seen other articles mention -rone when they clearly are writing about -none, and

even one conference abstract at an Association for Chemosensory Sciences meeting. Went to speak with the presenter

about her -rone findings and found out she had worked with -none. Was also dissapointed to learn that -rone and

-none are so close in interpretation that people who speak German are very likely to use either one for the other

(which the presenter explained was her problem).

No wonder scientific progress is sometimes slow; not all of us

speak the same language when it comes to pheromones. This being the case, Love-Scent.com continues to be the best

source for factual information about products (not journalists, and not advertisers--and sometimes, not even

researchers).

At least we have a Forum to help clarify some issues.

[Sagacious1420]

</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
To those who believe that the link that

I deleted was to an \"article\", please check the fine print.
If you go to askmen.com and do a search for

\"pheromones\" you\'ll find a list of links to so-called articles \"reviewing\" products.

Strangely it

seems all of the most recently published articles on pheromones are about PherX, who just so happens to be an askmen

advertising client.

If you took the time to read everything including the fine print, you\'ll see that every

review that mentions PherX favorably has a disclaimer line at the top or bottom (or both) that states, \"This

article is brought to you in part by Pherx.com\".

If one goes further to examine askmen\'s policy on

sponsored \"articles\", one finds that the article that is ostensibly being presented as an unbiased review is in

fact COMMISSIONED by the ADVERTISER.

Thus the link that I deleted was one that led to an ADVERTISEMENT, NOT an

ARTICLE in the sense that I see it being argued above.

I stand by my decision.

Oscar

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]




<hr /></blockquote><font

class=\"post\">

INDEED!

[Lucky]

Josh,

Welcome to the board! I understand completely about the blueberries.

[jimhoff]

HA! Thanks my friend.

J [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]