Anybody seen this yet? I received it this am from Rejoice

If you have the new Logos 4 software, the following product should prove quite useful - and so should our Christmas special offer

Note: You may want to forward this to a friend

NEW: Logos 4 Interactive Training CD

NO NEED FOR A SEMINAR - GET INTERACTIVE TRAINING!

Product Features:

Logos Bible Software 4 Interactive Training CD
Over 5 Hours of Instruction
You Interact with Your Mouse/Keyboard, so Concepts are Reinforced
"Hands-On" Training
You Set the Pace
Taught by Logos Trainer and Power User
Very Inexpensive/Great Value

55 Topics Covered

BIBLE STUDY IN L4

Program Settings
Choose Preferred Bible
Library Browser
Favorites and Bookmarks
Arranging Books in the Workspace
Layout
Resource Panel Menu
Add Tab Button
Cited By
Copy Bible Verses
Copying and Pasting
Highlighting
History

BEGINNER TRAINING

Logos Home Page
Working with Bibles, Part 1
Working with Bibles, Part 2
Working with Bibles, Part 3
Working with Bibles, Part 4
Seaching the Bible
Searching Books

Collections
Searching
Basic Search
Book Information

Background Research

Passage Guide, Part 1
Passage Guide, Part 2
Passage Guide, Part 3

Devotional Reading

Bible Reading Plan
Reading Lists
Lectionary

INTERMEDIATE TRAINING

Saving Your Research

Notes
Clippings

Quick Search Tools

Information
Power Lookup
Bible Explorer

Going Deeper with Specialized Reports

Biblical People
Biblical Places
Biblical Things
Text Comparison
Passage Analysis

ADVANCED TRAINING

Word Studies

Pronunciation
Bible Word Study: English/Greek/Hebrew
Exegetical Guide
Morphological Search
Syntax Search

Customizing Logos

Make a New Guide Template
Toolbar
Visual Filter
Command Box - Shortcut Toolbar - Help
Shortcut List

MISCELLANEOUS

Teaching Helps

Handouts
Drawing Tools
Word Puzzles
Timelines and Media Collection
Logos Hymnal

The CD has both Low (800x600) and High (1280x960) Resolution Videos
Your Instructor

John Fallahee
Former Logos Employee and Trainer for the Company
Has Been Using Logos for 13 Years
While at Logos, John Pioneered Online Training Videos for Logos 3

Product Facts

Over 5 Hours of Interactive Video Tutorials on Logos 4
Go at Your Own Pace
Use Your Mouse and Keyboard as You Watch - Concepts are Reinforced
It is Like 1-on-1 Training with a Logos Power User

Why attend an expensive seminar, or watch video lectures? Go Interactive!
LOGOS BIBLE SOFTWARE 4 INTERACTIVE TRAINING

Order the Logos 4 Interactive Training CD for $19.99
A GOOD CHRISTMAS GIFT IDEA FOR LOGOS USERS

http://www.dxcart.com/cart/?id=8698&code=IALL4DV

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56468#Comment_56468

Maybe because the "Report Abuse" key isn't working.

Supposedly "Report Abuse" is working now. Though I haven't had the opportunity to try it out.

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56462#Comment_56462

Does anybody have a problem with John directing traffic away from Logos.com for the purpose of selling something? Making money?

Matthew, I would normally bristle against this as you are, but I'm keeping in mind that the OP is not John.

Joan Korte asked about these videos and John showed up after many other posts in order to answer some queries and provide a test drive. So far I've felt that the seven posts he has made have not been unbecoming. The first post was a response to general queries, the second to a wiki request. The third - Seventh were all responses to specific issues, and all of them tied to Joan's original question.

So far no problem IMHO. Now then if John starts creating threads just to talk about his videos, I'll have a problem.

John Fallahee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56474#Comment_56474

Hi Matthew,

It was never my intention to use the forum in the way you described. The thread started with Joan posting a special Christmas offer from rejoice software.

However, many users were asking a lot of questions and I jumped in to address the questions. The discussions have been helping most eveyone.

Thanks,

John

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56477#Comment_56477

Matthew, I would normally bristle against this as you are, but I'm keeping in mind that the OP is not John.

Joan Korte asked about these videos and John showed up after many other posts in order to answer some queries and provide a test drive. So far I've felt that the seven posts he has made have not been unbecoming. The first post was a response to general queries, the second to a wiki request. The third - Seventh were all responses to specific issues, and all of them tied to Joan's original question.

So far no problem IMHO. Now then if John starts creating threads just to talk about his videos, I'll have a problem.

I'll go along with that if John first contacted Logos (since he's a former employee, I'm sure he can do that) and respected their wishes. Since only he and Logos would know if he's done that (because nothing thus far has been said) each person's response should be left up to their own conscience and the prompting of the HS, IMO.

Sorry John, don't mean to talk about you in the 3rd person while your listening :-)

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56475#Comment_56475

-deleted by poster (waste of space.)

John Fallahee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56489#Comment_56489

Hey no problem on chattin' in the 3rd person.

If anyone wants to chat offline my email: ilovelogos4@learnlogos.com

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56481#Comment_56481

However, many users were asking a lot of questions and I jumped in to address the questions. The discussions have been helping most eveyone.

John,

I am truly interested in your videos. (I am a rabbid Logos fan and even prefer drinking from Logos cups over my Starbucks cups.) I clicked the link in this thread and it didn't go anywhere. I started wondering if they have been disabled by SysAdmin, because they were of a sales nature. When Dan Pritchett first started posting on the forums he explained how external links drive down search engine statistics. This, as you know, drives customers to competitors.

I applaud you for supporting Logos software. I just wish the references to your website (and others) had not been posted as links.

[^]Sometimes my over zealous hyperbole torches the whole birthday cake when I try to light the candles. No personal insult intended.

J. Morris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56462#Comment_56462

Does anybody have a problem with John directing traffic away from Logos.com for the purpose of selling something? Making money?

What is the difference between this and the iPhone SMS app spam we kept getting? Don't give me the excuse it is about Logos software so the end justifies the means. Lot's of "third-party" training videos have been produced but nobody else is hocking their wares in the forum for money.

This is bad form

I had been thinking the same thing... just had not said it, so I'll second this quote.

Juanita

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56477#Comment_56477

Joan Korte asked about these videos and John showed up after many other posts in order to answer some queries and provide a test drive. So far I've felt that the seven posts he has made have not been unbecoming. The first post was a response to general queries, the second to a wiki request. The third - Seventh were all responses to specific issues, and all of them tied to Joan's original question.

So far no problem IMHO. Now then if John starts creating threads just to talk about his videos, I'll have a problem.

I did start the thread as Thomas has stated. I had no communication with John-- My original intent was to post a notice informing Logos Bible software users about a tutorial that would be available to purchase related to version 4. I was not actually promoting the tutorial since I had only seen one short clip. Hey, when it comes to L4, my attitude is "all hands on deck", meaning I need all the help I can get and if John Fallahee has a novel approach and the cost was very reasonable, I wanted the product. [:)] I'll buy Morris Proctor materials when they come out; I watch Mark Barnes-repeatedly; John Fidel, again, repeatedly. Logos videos in Training-repeatedly.

It was all about Logos Bible software and so not off topic. (I was glad John Fallahee joined in and gave more information.) I think if I was talking up another Bible software package on the Logos forums, that would be wrong. My purpose is to advance the use of L4. If I have overstepped forum boundaries, then I am sorry.

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56514#Comment_56514

If I have overstepped forum boundaries, then I am sorry.

I don't think you have Joan, and given the context I don't think John has either.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56514#Comment_56514

Just to add that I don't think any of this is inappropriate at all. I agree with everything Thomas has said (and it's not often I can say that [;)]). Just because the product isn't authorised by Logos doesn't mean that we can't discuss it. And as Thomas says, it's not as though John Fallahee has been inappropriately plugging his own product, nor (on this site) speaking against official products; he's just been responding to our questions. Good on him, I say. It's no different to discussing PBBs.

J. Morris

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56514#Comment_56514

Joan, it has nothing to do with your post, and is not ment to be personal against you in any way. You did as you should. You asked a question.

The issues are stated in the concerns.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, hope we didn't frighten you!

Blessings

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56514#Comment_56514

I think if I was talking up another Bible software package on the Logos forums, that would be wrong. My purpose is to advance the use of L4.

Joan,

You posted the whole R.C.S. advertisement. As much as I love "those guys", they do sell other brands. Dan Pritchett made it very simple to understand when he likened these diversionary postings unto a moving sidewalk transporting customers to the competitor's order counter. (Notice my use of periods to break up the common search name of the off-site company?)

I agree whole-heartedly with your enthusiasm of all things Logos. I eagerly welcome all the training help I can get. But when we post in these forums it is almost like carving the comments in stone. They can be there forever. Even if a SysAdmin deletes the whole thread, Google has a snapshot of it and that can be searched. All that aside, Thank you for calling my attention to this. I just hope John doesn't refuse my order. [:@] (Notice I did not mention John's last name? Thereby avoiding another search engine hit .)

It is all about the behind-the-scenes technicalities of search engines and commerce. We sometimes unintentionally injure those most precious to us. I'm just trying to protect my "golden goose" named Logos.

Brandon Vaughn

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56462#Comment_56462

Does anybody have a problem with John directing traffic away from Logos.com for the purpose of selling something? Making money?

What is the difference between this and the iPhone SMS app spam we kept getting? Don't give me the excuse it is about Logos software so the end justifies the means. Lot's of "third-party" training videos have been produced but nobody else is hocking their wares in the forum for money.

This is bad form

I would say the difference is night and day. This isn't spam, and has everything to do with Logos. I would hope that every "third-party" training video producer would make us aware of any Logos products.

It would be one thing for them to announce a product, let alone to kindly respond to a posting from someone not employed with the company ... and another thing to constantly start new threads about sales of the same product.

I saw no one hocking the forum for money. Seems a bit of an over-reaction in many ways.

Ultimately, he isn't directing traffic away from Logos, because it is a circular path! As much as I like MP stuff, this approach (interactive learning) might just help a lot of folk, who in turn become advertisements for Logos ... which could ultimately mean more sales. The same argument could be said of MP showing up on the front page of Logos 4.

We should support and encourage every free and paid resource that supports or encourages Logos. And provided that the "paid resources" don't use the forums as their monthly "newsletter", then I don't see the big deal with it.

I for one am glad that there are more free and "competitor" resources coming out now! That will only make training better and hopefully drive down prices on things (which to me are well worth it, but have a tendency to be really expensive).

Blessings,
Brandon

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56555#Comment_56555

Just for those who may not know what I'm referring to:

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/136/4581.aspx#4581

This is the Logos forum post where Dan Pritchett, VP of Logos Marketing, finally breaks his silence to address the ... Well, you read it for yourselves and determine what you believe he is addressing.

This one key paragraph I will quote (in case you don't want to read everything) is:

"In the forums, it is a totally new ballgame. A post in the forums has the potential to live forever. Exposed to searches, views, casual reading, topic threads, and most importantly—the algorithms that the search engines use to rank every site in the world. Without going into a course on SEO, link building strategies, Google PR, weight, and context relevance and anchor text optimization, let me just say that the main reason I do not like links to the competition is due to how that impacts the search engines for us and particularly for them."

Lastly, I have no idea what the details are in Morris Proctor's relationship with Logos as an "authorized trainer." But I would hate to be Morris seeing the ad-copy presenting a competitive comparrison rather than a complementary one. Merry Christmas, Morris! [G]

SteveF

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56531#Comment_56531

John, Thanks for all the L3 Videos

Seeing the turn this thread has taken (like most others usually do [:)] ) I just want to thank you for so many past helpful videos in Logos 3.

I am also still waiting for your "Fellahee Exegetical Study Guide" to show up in L4 (along with the other "beta" guides from L3). - Yes, I know it is supposed to be one of the 'Coming Soon...features.

For myself, I would have been very upset if we had NOT been informed about these products. The more the merrier!

Regards

Steve F

Rev. D.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/55813#Comment_55813

I have Logos installed on two systems and it's easier for me, based on my learning style, to view the video and be able to simulate the activity without having to switch between screens. This also enables me to look at the actual lesson and perform the activity while watching the video simulation.

It just seemed like the pauses were too long, but that was a very minor complaint, and even complaint is too strong of a word. Thanks for sharing the information and I'll try the video again.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56596#Comment_56596

I think a bit of over-reacting is taking place here. I just don't see what the problem is.

As for the comment from the VP of Logos, one should read it in context. I have searched the Logos website and i don't find these interactive training videos being offered by Logos! John was simply responding to question being asked by members of this forum - sorry i can't fault his action on this thread.

Ted

SteveF

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56555#Comment_56555

QUOTE: Google has a snapshot of it and that can be searched.

Matthew, that is exactly why Logos told us they wanted to be here way out in the "world wide web." They wanted to be searched for and found. It is why they 'moved' us from the e-mail based News Reders.

And (trying to be fair to your point of view) this is part of the price they pay for being on display on the web (if they even see it as an issue.)

Some (- in general - not you specifically, my brother) seem very quick to leap to Logos "defense" on Forum postings when I'm really not convinced that Logos even cares. Yes, this IS their "sandbox." Yes, they are very gracious. But for so many to get their "knickers-in-a-knot" over "perceived" ills, slights etc seems to be a little much.

Note: I've purchased Morris' (very helpful) 2 volume set of manuas, AND when I sort out Christmas,l plan to purchase John's video as well. AND MR. Barnes and MR. Fidel are producing wonderful FREE materials that is as good, or better than anything else I've seen. If there are helpful logos materials out there, especially from talented folks like Mr. Fellahee I WANT to know about it!

There are so many deep concerns in our world, I'm just not sure we need to so quickly jump to defend Logos from every perceived slight.

Thank you

Steve F

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56596#Comment_56596

Welcome to the forum Brandon,

Ultimately, he isn't directing traffic away from Logos, because it is a circular path!

I refer you to Dan's explanation referenced above to how search engines DO direct traffic based on links. The route is not necessarily circular because R.C.S. does sell other Bible software.

And provided that the "paid resources" don't use the forums as their monthly "newsletter", then I don't see the big deal with it.

There is a term in campaign financing called "stream income" (not "income stream") that says there is a certain amount you can dip out of the current cash flow. Logos knows this is real when they look at their sales statistics. If everybody buys Anchor Yale Bible, they might not buy NICOT/NICNT, or Portfolio, or Zondervan Collection or ICC.... You get the picture. If every related third party seller comes on here and collects some of that limited "stream income" and leaves nothing for us to buy Logos resources, Logos ceases to exist. Read how many people say they spent all their money and cannot buy into the 12 days of Logos sale. Worst of all, Logos is being required to underwrite their own undermining! Sounds like a plan right out of the White House.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56624#Comment_56624

Matthew, thanks for posting that. I understand now much better why you said what you did.I'll simply say that:

I am glad that there are no policies on this. I applaud Bob's stance here.
That important post in the other thread is one of the most disappointing things I've ever read from a Logos employee. If the forum was flooded with spam it would have been justified. That wasn't the case.
I'm not sure that post would have been written in that way today. The fact that the original post in theis thread hasn't been deleted, probably suggests the same. Logos has 'used' us (I mean that in a good way) to help them through a very busy time of customer support, and they continue to do so. Thousands of hours are given voluntarily on this forum and on the wiki. There needs to be some give and take. Logos are gaining immeasurably more from this forum than they are loosing over one or two posts from users which tell other users of sources for their products or resources that help users use their products.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56630#Comment_56630

<Post no longer relevant>.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56630#Comment_56630

Ted & Stephen Please read all of Dan Pritchett's posts on the referenced thread. My complaint (& Dan's whole point) is not talking about third party products. The issue is linking to outside locations has a REAL and undesired effect. Maybe that is not very obvious to godly men and women who spend all their time studying the Bible and working hard in their ministries.

Soul in Cyberspace http://www.logos.com/ebooks/details/SOULCYBR gives a little peak behind the curtain of how the internet is not so innocent.

Try a google search on Logos Bible Software. I get 734,000 hits. How many do you think I click on? Where do I start? Do I ever click on #538,188? If the top 20 this week includes this forun reference to an outside website selling competing Bible software Logos suffers REAL damages. That is what I'm griping about.

Meanwhile, Thank you to every one of you who wisely spends your time labouring in the Word rather than dabbling behind the IT curtains. (Unless of course God has called you back there. [8-|])

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56637#Comment_56637

Thank you Mark for helping me keep perspective. A Brother in time of need is a Brother indeed.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56659#Comment_56659

Thanks Matthew. I appreciate it.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56505#Comment_56505

external links drive down search engine statistics

I think a page with one link to an external site will not drive down the search engine stats. It's those pages that are filled with links to other sites, pages that exist solely to increase the number of links in to other sites to supposedly drive up their Google page ranks that cause problems. I don't think this particular link to John's website is going to cause Logos any problems in search engine ranking.

TCBlack

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56602#Comment_56602

Just for those who may not know what I'm referring to:

http://community.logos.com/forums/p/136/4581.aspx#4581

Somehow I'd missed that post among the tens of thousands of posts here. (grin). Thanks for pointing that out Matthew. I've saved that link for future reference.

Keith Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56703#Comment_56703

A much as people might want to defend Logos here, I suggest that we let Logos do their own defending. Several years ago when the PBB came out John Cross and I converted a few public domain books to PBBs. The accusations that John and I had to endure totally turned me off the newsgroup for several years. It has only been in the past few weeks that I have braved participation beyond the lurker level. The accusations of "robbing sales from Logos" did not end until Bob himself intervened and say it was OK for users to use the PBB to publish book that Logos was publishing. My suggestion is to please slow down and let Logos respond if they see this as a problem.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56844#Comment_56844

A much as people might want to defend Logos here, I suggest that we let Logos do their own defending. Several years ago when the PBB came out John Cross and I converted a few public domain books to PBBs. The accusations that John and I had to endure totally turned me off the newsgroup for several years. It has only been in the past few weeks that I have braved participation beyond the lurker level. The accusations of "robbing sales from Logos" did not end until Bob himself intervened and say it was OK for users to use the PBB to publish book that Logos was publishing. My suggestion is to please slow down and let Logos respond if they see this as a problem.

I hope my posts were not taken as a condemnation of any kind :-) If Logos is willing to provide a place for the free exchange of appropriate (e.g. not vulgar) ideas then when it happens it shouldn't be condemned. On a personal level I believe we should all respect Logos within these forums, and I believe asking if they mind my commenting about a product I am selling is an appropriate step. Some may feel that is unnecessary and that's fine. Since I do not know what communication has transpired between John and Logos I certainly am not going to say that he is wrong. I'm just a little uncomfortable with it personally until I know such communication has taken place.

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56855#Comment_56855

I'm just a little uncomfortable with it personally until I know such communication has taken plac

Well, why not ask?

John, have you had any communications with Logos management about the discussion of your products on their forums?

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56860#Comment_56860

Well, why not ask?

because that is too simple :-) a very good question.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56664#Comment_56664

Logos is the big boy on the block among the other Bible software publishers. They don't have to meet every challenge to their machismo. But they have the right to some respect in their own living room. Otherwise we get the same scenario that General Motors went through. (After 125 years of building cars and becoming the world's largest car company, President Obama takes over GM and bankrupts the company in 90 days, canceling dental & vision insurance on 400,000 auto workers.) Sometimes it is best to let those who birthed the company choose how it is run.

John Fallahee

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56860#Comment_56860

The forums have not come up in our discussions yet, even though I talked to Dan on the phone yesterday. And Bob congratulated me on the videos today via email.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56652#Comment_56652

Maybe that is not very obvious to godly men and women who spend all their time studying the Bible and working hard in their ministries.

Matthew, this quote above really was not necessary.

If the top 20 this week includes this forun reference to an outside website selling competing Bible software Logos suffers REAL damages.

My point precisely, these are not products offered by Logos or carried by
them. Where is the competition? The same can be said of PBB & your helpful
suggestion on where i could purchase the Anglicised NIV.

You even participated in a thread where Logos users who upgrade to one of
the base package, offered their unwanted product on the forum b/cos they were
advise to do so by Logos employees. If i remember correctly you said on that
thread, there was a halt on transfer of license until January next
year.

John was simply responding to a question asked by another Logos user on how
to use Logos 4 via his product, which is not carried by Logos. I do understand
Dan's post but i don't see how this takes from Logos. John’s product is about
how to use the software, (good promotion for V4 i would say) and not about a
resource produced or carried or in competition with Logos. PBB takes more from Logos than this but I don't find
anyone complaining that it is wrong to post PBB
links.

Ted

Edit: See this thread http://community.logos.com/forums/t/7217.aspx.
Hmmmm .... i don't find any complaints or protestation there.[;)]

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56855#Comment_56855

Matthew,

thank you for the link to Dan Pritchetts' post, I HAD NO IDEA that this issue existed...I'll be more mindful of my linking in the future.

So this includes "word references" to things also because they are also subject to an internet search?

Wow...very complicated...I'll do my best to comply; my aim here is to support Logos...

Keith Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56855#Comment_56855

I hope my posts were not taken as a condemnation of any kind

Actually all the post have been in a good spirit, but things can get out of hand and did in that case.

BTW it was John McComb, not John Cross.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56995#Comment_56995

my aim here is to support Logos...

Some support Logos...others support the Libronix engine. Other publishers are using the Libronix engine. Has something changed? Is Logos planning to become the exclusive seller of Libronix resources? If Logos' intention is to have a Logos only forum, then we probably need a Libronix forum as well.

Terry Poperszky

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56886#Comment_56886

The forums have not come up in our discussions yet, even though I talked to Dan on the phone yesterday. And Bob congratulated me on the videos today via email.

Thanks for the response John. Personally, I hope you understand those on the forums who seem to be overly protective of Logos. You have lines of communication opened with Bob and Dan, so I am personally going to stop worrying about it. That makes me a non-interested party, and until one of the three of you address it with me specifically, I plan on remaining such.

Robert Pavich

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57078#Comment_57078

my aim here is to support Logos...

Some support Logos...others support the Libronix engine. Other publishers are using the Libronix engine. Has something changed? Is Logos planning to become the exclusive seller of Libronix resources? If Logos' intention is to have a Logos only forum, then we probably need a Libronix forum as well.

Mark,

Did I misunderstand Dan's post? Enlighten me...I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57098#Comment_57098

No you didn't misunderstand. The Logos/Libronix distinction Mark is referring to dates back to the early L3 days and has been long abandoned. (Then the software was Libronix, the resources were published in the Libronix format by Logos or by others). If you're interested, you can visit: http://www.libronix.com/ a site which should long ago have been mothballed. Libronix is dead. Long live Logos!

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57098#Comment_57098

Enlighten me

Hi Robert

May I suggest you search the Logos forum site? There is a lot of information available to help you in your question. One thing to take note of when you search....not all Logos employees give the same information. Dan P and his brother Bob P don't always see eye to eye. As far as I know, Bob is still running the ship at the moment. His voice often trumps every other voice. I would love to dig up the various posts for you, but dont have that much time. Perhaps the posts one day will be organized a bit better to help people find information faster. But for now, I must say that it is news to me that the Libronix idea has been abandoned. I have always understood Libronix to be the engine and Logos, Galaxie, Nelson etc are companies that contribute to the engine (of course Libronix is owned by Logos).

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56973#Comment_56973

Maybe that is not very obvious to godly men and women who spend all their time studying the Bible and working hard in their ministries.

Matthew, this quote above really was not necessary.

Dear Brother Ted,

Maybe you thought this comment was sarcastic or direspectful. I know we can't hear the nuances or see facial expressions while communicating online. Please understand this statement was not intended to be either. I honestly believe preaching the Gospel is more important that learning all the details about how search engines function. Although some posters in this thread definitely have a good understanding of search engines it is obvious most don't have a clue. That is not disrespectful, it is an honest truth. And as a wise man once said, "Truth is still truth, even if you don't believe it." I am sure some posters on the forum have a pilot's license. I don't. You would be crazy to let me fly your plane. Why every Bible student must be a IT professional escapes me.

My point precisely, these are not products offered by Logos or carried by them. Where is the competition?

I refer you back to my previous post about "stream income." The competetion is for our limited expendable cash. Example: You have a 5-note for lunch. You check the Logos Fish & Chips forum to find a store location. You see an ad for a third party store (Lets call it "Royal Chips & Sturgeon" = R.C.S) You go there to buy your lunch and see they also sell a combo called "B.W.8" (Beef Wellington with 8 quarters of beans on toast) You spend your 5-note on the B.W.8 instead of getting the original Logos Fish & Chips. That represents a lost sale.

You even participated in a thread where Logos users who upgrade to one of the base package, offered their unwanted product on the forum b/cos they were advise to do so by Logos employees. If i remember correctly you said on that thread, there was a halt on transfer of license until January next year.

I was vindicated when Bob Pritchett came on the forums telling the upgraders they had been mis-informed by the CS Reps. (MC Jones was right! [:D] ) As far as the moratorium on license transfers, it was mentioned by several others on the forum. I did not originate it. And the resale of titles used as credit towards upgrades was also addressed by Bob (confirming my position again. [:D] ) I have not been wrong on any of my facts, just in the harshness of the way I present them.

PBB takes more from Logos than this but I don't find anyone complaining that it is wrong to post PBB links.

Hmmm. I don't see PBB capabiities in Logos 4 yet . Do you? Good thing Bob keeps turning the other cheek or you'd never see it. I've got my bid in for Barne's Notes in Community Pricing.

Lastly, I am thrilled more training videos are being produced. I have no ill will towards either outside party mentioned in this thread. I do not fault John for the full color, full page adverstisement in the original post of this thread. I don't fault Joan or anybody else for not understanding how search engines work. Once again, my facts are all correct, I am just not very kind in my presentation

Thanks Joan for the info. Thanks John for producing it. Thanks Mark for pulling me out of the ditch. Thanks Ted, Stephen et. al. for your patience. I'm still right and I'm done. [H]

Jack Caviness

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/56973#Comment_56973

Maybe that is not very obvious to godly men and women who spend all their time studying the Bible and working hard in their ministries.

Matthew, this quote above really was not necessary.

Ted

I'm curious. What did you find to be objectionable in Matthew's statement? It seems that you—or I—have misunderstood his intention. You did not quote the entire sentence. Was there some reason for the omission? It appears that many posters on this forum are "pilling on" Matthew without actually taking time to understand his concern. I don't personally agree with him, but I think most of the criticism is unwarranted.

EDIT: I see now that while I was composing the above paragraph, Matthew responded to your post. However, that does not change what I said, so I'll leave it there.

I had to edit this post twice. Philip, can I hire you are my proof reader? [8-|]

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57121#Comment_57121

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your gracious response.

Maybe you thought this comment was sarcastic or direspectful. I know we can't hear the nuances or see facial expressions while communicating online. Please understand this statement was not intended to be either. I honestly believe preaching the Gospel is more important that learning all the details about how search engines function. Although some posters in this thread definitely have a good understanding of search engines it is obvious most don't have a clue. That is not disrespectful, it is an honest truth. And as a wise man once said, "Truth is still truth, even if you don't believe it." I am sure some posters on the forum have a pilot's license. I don't. You would be crazy to let me fly your plane. Why every Bible student must be a IT professional escapes me.

Okay, sorry i got that wrong.

As for your position being vindicated time and time again. Well, not your "Calminian"( did i spell that right?) views[:D] when you get to glory you will find that you were always a Calvinist but didn't know it.[:P] on that i am right!

My brother, i am sorry if i came across wrongly. It was not my intention to offend but to bring balance.

Every Blessing.

Ted

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57123#Comment_57123

Ted

I'm curious. What did you find to be objectionable in Matthew's statement? It seems that you—or I—have misunderstood his intention. You did not quote the entire sentence. Was there some reason for the omission? It appears that many posters on this forum are "pilling on" Matthew without actually taking time to understand his concern. I don't personally agree with him, but I think most of the criticism is unwarranted.

EDIT: I see now that while I was composing the above paragraph, Matthew responded to your post. However, that does not change what I said, so I'll leave it there.

I had to edit this post twice. Philip, can I hire you are my proof reader?

Jack, really i do understand Matthew concern and i appreciate it.

As for what i found objectionable in his statement, that is now history. I read him wrongly on that thinking he was being sarcastic. Interesting you view my interaction with Matt as a criticism when i thought i was trying to get him to take it easy with John. Perhaps i should have worded my response to him differently. One lives to learn, & when a moderating voice like yours raise such question. I had to read my response again to Matt & learn how to better engage next time without being misunderstood. I should have acknowledge his point before offering mine.

Ted

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/57135#Comment_57135

Thank you Ted, Jack & everybody for your patience in allowing me to keep talking until I finally got my concern expressed. I don't need for you to agree with me, listening was enough. [:)]

when you get to glory you will find that you were always a Calvinist but didn't know it. on that i am right!

Bro. Ted, How 'bout this:

I happily concede absolutely nothing I do or did gets me saved. Is that good enough for now? 1 Corinthians 13:12

So happy to be His,

Matthew