1. 4
  1.  

  2. 5

    I’ve worked with people who started off in the seventies. Someone like that should have been included, someone who’s on the verge of retirement.

    1. [Comment removed by author]

      1. 1

        So our original, well-researched article with 3 interviews done with real people is spam? What wouldn’t be spam, out of interest?

        1. 2

          I believe the objection here is that your sole engagement with this community, to date, is to link to your business. The quality is irrelevant.

          1. 1

            Sorry that’s not correct. 7 posts, 3 about SQLizer.

            1. 2

              I stand corrected - you have posted a link on astrophysics that’s not from your business.

              3 posts from SQLizer, 3 posts from your other gig weared4, 1 (quite fascinating) bit of astrophysics.

              To be clear, I’m not taking a position here on whether the content is spam; I’m trying to explain why some people are calling it that.