Has anyone read the new Just Holdens magazine yet?

**HK1837** · 26-03-2015, 08:20 AM

Good to see stuff on the Sandman, but not good to see how much misinformation and errors are in it. A lot of the basic data is correct but significant amounts of the rest is simply wrong, written poorly or condradicts itself. The worst thing is it points to this site in multiple places as the source of the data - not sure how others here feel about it but that sort of irks me a bit that Eric Norton would do that yet hasn't overtly popped his head up here and said "hey fellas i'm doing this article, i'm going to copy stuff and publish it".
Might be all above board and hopefully done with Blocker's blessing but still seems odd, like all care and no responsibility - like the disclaimers under the articles.

Some nice pictures in the magazine though, as Eric seems to have a backdoor into GMH archival photos (see the back of the magazine).

**HZSanFan** · 26-03-2015, 04:07 PM

Yes I have read it and was thinking much of the same. I assumed that permission must have been given by the Admin of this site.

**sjc315** · 26-03-2015, 04:57 PM

Haven't read the main Sandman story but had a quick look at a story on a bloke who had a green HQ Sandman, said the paint faded badly from new. I remember reading a thread on here a while back about that colour looking different in an old photograph, maybe helps explain it. Sandblasting story looks interesting too.

**Blocker** · 26-03-2015, 05:16 PM

He asked if he could use some images on the site e.g brochures and I said that would be ok.

I hope the article does not read like this site is the source of all the bad information :(

Another article will be released tomorrow on news.com.au about the Sandman launch and it may refer to this site.

**HK1837** · 26-03-2015, 05:26 PM

You'd better read it Blocker. To a legal person it may be otherwise, but I read it as most or all of the identification and "factual" information came from here including a straight copy and paste of the ID guide text. The article essentially says no responsibility for the info is taken and points here.