Runners world had lost one of its customers but it seems they might win him back, ... screw them anyway
LRC Note on 4/26/2022 - This thread from 20 years ago was bumped up today and we've added an explanation about what it's referring to a few posts down. The thread was titled, "Runners World" but we changed it to explain to people what it's about.
Right on!
Come to think of it RW is getting a little tiresome with its "how to lose 15lbs in 2 weeks", "12 secrets to make you run faster" and all the other recyled stories they have been rehashing for the past 15 years. I use to get RW for results but that is a bit of joke--even on their webpage
anybody see the apology on the RW website?
It's not on the main page, but it's a "feature story" in the daily news for today.
Well, well, well..........David slays Goliath, again!
Go Letsrun.
It looks like RW bent over and took it from the Johnson brothers. Congrats for not backing down and getting the apology. I wonder what they're saying about the apology on the runnersworld forums.
Congrats on the near-total win, LetsRun. (Did you get a decent $ payment to go with the public apology? If so, I take away the "near" qualifier.) Got to admit I did not see the situation as that easily resolved in the Brothers Johnson's favor. But then again, I didn't think RW would flat-out lie about sending warning e-mails.
Mkimbiaji wrote:
Runners world had lost one of its customers but it seems they might win him back, ... screw them anyway
I haven't read Runners World since 2002.
It is £5 now..
Mkimbiaji wrote:
Runners world had lost one of its customers but it seems they might win him back, ... screw them anyway
What is pertaining too? You know -- pertaining?
WTF apology is this thread talking about?
Way back in the day, if I remember correctly, Runnersworld threatened to sue us because we linked to a page of theirs that didn't have. People under the age of 30 are going to have a hard time believing this but at the time some weren't sure if it was a copyright violation if you linked to someone else's page.
We've always felt at Letsrun that's one of our strengths. If you go to any other website, they generally only link to their own stuff. We link to what's best.
They used to have like a bunch of stories each day under the same URL. If you wanted to link to the third one, the only way to do it was to click on the "print page" button and it gave you a differnt URL. The problem - according to them - was that page didn't have ads on it and they said they were going to sue.
We showed no fear and published the letter from their lawyer. Not only that, we sent them a cheeky reply and threatened to countersue them as a quick search of their messageboard showed it contained tons of our material.
Read this and you'll get a quick primer:
https://www.letsrun.com/2002/legalletters.htm
It became like a huge think on the Internet as we had all sorts of Internet pioneers and free speech people offering to represent us as the concept of "deep-linking" wasn't quite established yet.
rojo wrote:
Way back in the day, if I remember correctly, Runnersworld threatened to sue us because we linked to a page of theirs that didn't have. People under the age of 30 are going to have a hard time believing this but at the time some weren't sure if it was a copyright violation if you linked to someone else's page.
We've always felt at Letsrun that's one of our strengths. If you go to any other website, they generally only link to their own stuff. We link to what's best.
They used to have like a bunch of stories each day under the same URL. If you wanted to link to the third one, the only way to do it was to click on the "print page" button and it gave you a differnt URL. The problem - according to them - was that page didn't have ads on it and they said they were going to sue.
We showed no fear and published the letter from their lawyer. Not only that, we sent them a cheeky reply and threatened to countersue them as a quick search of their messageboard showed it contained tons of our material.
Read this and you'll get a quick primer:
It became like a huge think on the Internet as we had all sorts of Internet pioneers and free speech people offering to represent us as the concept of "deep-linking" wasn't quite established yet.
So what was the outcome rojo? Did Runner's World ever respond to your second letter, or did they give up and skulk off tail between their legs?
Mkimbiaji wrote:
Runners world had lost one of its customers but it seems they might win him back, ... screw them anyway
LRC Note on 4/26/2022 - This thread from 20 years ago was bumped up today and we've added an explanation about what it's referring to a few posts down. The thread was titled, "Runners World" but we changed it to explain to people what it's about.
Yes. Sheesh. I'm more of a track nerd than I realized.
You only do it because it is easier for you all to do that not because you find the best material so don't pat yourself on the back too hard. Amazing how you can cite your age in a post and simultaneously show us how immature you are as well.
Honestly, I much preferred the format of RW's old Message Board to Let's Run.
RW's board was better structured and it was easier to find informative threads. RW's decision to abandon their message board was the beginning (or maybe the middle) of the end.
LR has gotten better with the Up & Down posting and other recent board refinements, but the sh#t posting noise is still many multiples of the old RW board.
Yeah, this all seems tame and silly by 2022 standards. What was weirder was that Runner's World had one of the nation's top newspaper columnists/journalists as a semi-regular contributor and after his stuff went up at RW, he would reproduce the full text of those pieces on this LetsRun message board.
LRC is just a unsuccessful pre version of Huffington Post