[Dwight Ennis]

A well-meant idea I'm sure, but experience has shown that, as a general rule, people don't read stuff like that. "The Rules" were posted at the top of the "Beginners Forum" before the changeover. Seemed like a logical place since one would think that would be the first forum hit by a new member, and it contained the sig guidelines, a link to how to post photos, etc. People still asked the same questions about how to post photos, initially used oversized sigs, etc.

After the changeover, something similar was instead placed at the top of the "Public Forum" - same issues.

FAQs existed on how to post photos on the new site (until the new RTE came along, when it was removed as no longer applicable). Many would still ask how to post photos.

Consequently, I can only conclude that people (or at least, many people) don't read stuff like that. It seems more effective to simply answer such questions as they come up.

 

[Dwight Ennis]

Posted By c nelson on 01/15/2009 3:08 PM
oh, and I still can't post photo here anymore, but I did get the quote thing right this time!

cale


Posting photos is done exactly the same way it was done on the old site...

[*img]URLofPhoto[*/img] without the asterisks.

 

[Dwight Ennis]

With respect to Bachmann yanking that particular post, in all fairness to Bachmann, it could also be do to what in their eyes constitutes copyright infringement. Note Cale's post...

then Andre did post the review, almost in it's entirety asking the Bman to respond:
Bold mine

Andre' would probably have done better to quote a few sections and post a link to the entire review. Copyright infringement could also be just an excuse for yanking the post, but the "fair use" clause has severe restrictions on it now with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and lawsuits over copyright infringement are very much a reality now. And we all know there's no love lost between Bachmann and 1:20.me. hehehe

 

[Dwight Ennis]

I was told legally if something appears on the internet it is fair game for anybody to re-post it or use it????????????
Not true. Here's a court ruling from 2000[/b][/b]. Search Google for copyright internet content and you'll find all kinds of stuff.

 

[Dwight Ennis]

It's sure hard to keep this thread on the topic of the Mallet.....
My post was directly related to the Mallet and pertains to why Bachmann may have chosen not to respond to the review, or leave it posted, on their site. I am not, however, defending their position, nor their propensity to ignore problems.

 

[Dwight Ennis]

Now ... there is a separate issue involving the binding of valve gear components based on their position.
I asked Dennis about that (Dennis Cole owns the Train Shop, and prior that worked there for his father Vern, the former owner along with Charlie Gibbs - most of those decades Dennis spent servicing and repairing locos of all scales). He is the guy who test ran them (all four of them), and he noticed no binding nor clicking during the test runs. So it may have been a fluke that the loco reviewed had the issue, or it may be more widespread, but on these four locos, it wasn't a problem.

 

[Dwight Ennis]

Not to confuse you even further John, bit it bears mentioning. The Bachmann Mallet is an inside frame locomotive, so what Greg and Semper said regarding it is true. However, on outside frame locomotives, like the K-27 for example, the counterweights are not "the "half moon" part of a driver, the filled in part." The drivers on such a loco are inside the frame, but the counterweights are on the outside connected to the axle ends. I only bring this up here because discussions of Bachmann's previous loco, the K-27, revolved around "loose counterweights."