Wait wait, so if we don’t pay, we can still read threads, right? I bet I will get it, but just in case my mum puts her foot down with a firm hand on it, I still want to read on the SDMB. I get all my laughs from you guys and I don’t wanna lose em!
While I agree with you on three, (the Goyim believe this to be a sign of the Apocolypse) I think four would form an elite as well.
Weren’t you a mod?
And, will the curse “I hope you don’t have four ninety five!” be grounds for banishment?
You know what your problem is, Pal?
Your problem is that you like to confuse people with the facts.
I hope you don’t have four-ninety-five!
Are you saying SDMB will issue another screen name to a previously registered email address? Maybe SDMD is even stupider than I imagined …
The D is for Dumb …
But you’re still evading my main question: Do you feel obligated to keep paying for this web service, under the premise that “information on the Internet should be free”?
I agree that the Chicago Reader could find more ways to make money (I also recommend the Amazon links—they help pay for my web hosting), but neither you, me, or the Chicago Reader is obligated to pay for web services and hosting because “information on the Internet should be free.” If you want to have ads on your site and that works for you, fine. But as has been mentioned before, a lot of ads on web sites can be irritating. I explicitly avoid ads on my site because I think they’re obnoxious, merely relying on Amazon links to the books (that I link to anyway—I recommend a lot of books on my site). That works for me and that’s my decision. I also think it would work, at least a little, for Chicago Reader, but that’s their decision to make.
We all find our own way to fund these web services, and in a lot of cases we fund them ourselvses. All our choice. No one better have the gall to tell me that I ought to keep paying for my web site because “information on the Internet should be free.” Nope, it’s not. I’m not paying for it out of any notion that it should be free for everyone else. I’m paying for it because I can afford to, and because I want to. The day that I don’t want to or can’t afford to, the website goes offline. Or, I start to charge people. Totally my choice.
So, back to the initial point, which you seem to want to avoid: DO YOU FEEL OBLIGATED TO KEEP PAYING FOR THESE SERVICES BECAUSE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FREE? Yes, or no? If no, then you have your answer. The Chicago Reader isn’t obligated either and they can do whatever they damned well please, including charging people.
Are you on the SDMB payroll, drugs or have you become detached from concept of the Internet?
Are you whooshing me or do you just not read my posts?
Tell me: am I obligated to keep paying for my web hosting because information on the Internet should be free? Yes, or no? Simple question.
In a word “yes” because this is my choice to have this site running no one else has made this choice for me. However if we want to take that tack then we could argue that I pay my internet service provider so now on top of paying for an internet service then I have to now pay to create content on some body else’s web site. I think not, if they are not capable of creating content on their own then they shouldn’t ask me to pay to be the creator of the content for them.
I have no problem paying for Dilbert or the like, content created by someone else. ButI’m not paying for content that I help create.
Does the Chireader not make money from other avenues already(some of which I’ll assume is already based on information gathered from these forums)? Do they not currently get paid for their work? Have they not recieved a pay check for the last five years? If the answer is no then I might consider helping them out a bit but other wise as I said I’ll be keeping my five bucks.
I also feel that the level of accuracy in GQ is going to fall way off. Factual answers and everything. Can some tell me that this will not happen?
What?
It’s amusing, really, how heroically you try to avoid answering the question.
So you are saying that because you made a choice to make a web site that you must make it free? But you still made the choice. And I assume that at any time you could make the choice to stop paying for hosting, right?
So I guess the question is, do you feel obligated to keep paying for the hosting at all? Yes or no? Do you think that you are entitled to make a choice to stop paying for it? To just shut it down? Yes or no?
And they shouldn’t ask you to pay to host the content they create either. But you do pay for it. Because you made a choice to do so. You could just as easily make a choice not to pay for the hosting, and then where would they be?
If you ask them to help pay for the expenses involved, they can make a choice to say yes or no. They are not obligated to say yes. Just like you are not obligated to pay for the hosting at all.
It sort of appears you might be responding to me. Your comments respond to something that could be confused with what I said.
You might try putting the text you’re responding to in quotes, thereby making it clear what you’re disagreeing with.
Yes, we must keep chat, discussions, emails, information searches, etc… FREE! This “was” the primary principle for the Internet.
If you like, I can register you the way I’d sign somebody up who didn’t have a credit card. Drop me an email if you’re interested. Put something with ‘SDMB’ in it in the subject line, so I don’t delete it as spam.
So, I guess you’re saying that when the people who are hosting these services can longer afford them, then . . . what? Shut them down? Anything rather than charge for them or ask those who benefit from them to chip in?
That makes ever so much sense. Because God Forbid that anyone other than the Chicago Reader pay for this whole venture. Though you know, it’s not really free, since the Chicago Reader is paying for it. But hey, who cares, as long as you aren’t paying for it, right? The definition of “free” must mean, “As long as I don’t pay for it” in your world, right?
So, I suppose if the Chicago Reader decided to shut down the SDMB instead of going to subscription mode, that would make more sense to you, right? Because at least they didn’t (shudder) charge for it.
Since hearing about Kent State, it has been my policy to not bitch about those in authority.
If it must be paid for, I am willing to pay a nominal fee to not have to see advertising.
I hope you DO have four-ninety-five, but I understand your principle.
To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, I reckon we know what I am, we are merely haggling over the price.
Once again yes it is your site if you wish to create a site with content of your choosing then yes you should be paying for your hosting service. Personally I built my own servers and hosting is less of an issue. Now once you have your site running you can use it to make money if you know how. Sell something make something do some thing but for god sakes asking people to pay to create content for you.
Traffic is what makes a web site, I beleive even Ed has said this and I’ll stand corrected if I’m wrong I can’t find the exact post. But if you want to know a sure fire way of reducing traffic? I’m not giving any clue$.
Uh. Wow. Way to avoid the question, once again.
So, you are saying that I am obligated to pay for hosting. That’s fine, because I want to pay for hosting. The minute I cannot afford to pay for hosting, I can shut my site down, right? Or, I can start charging (or asking people to help keep the site afloat). People can choose to help, or not. But I am taking it that you think that it is unreasonable to ask people to help me keep the site afloat? Why? I’m not twisting anyone’s arm. If people feel my site has value to them, they’ll chip in. If they don’t think it’s worthy of support, they won’t help support it.
So, would you suggest that the Chicago Reader shut down this board, then? I mean, if they no longer wish (or can afford) to fund the expenses all themselves, then is that their only option? Anything other than charging for it? Yes or no?
Actually I would think your hosting service is doing fine and will continue to make money but, if I decided that I was no longer going to pay for my servers or internet access then why would I expect someone to pay my “rent” for me?
I am also noticing a distinct lack of answers to my question of accuracy in GQ from a limited “membership” or are the people staying going to know literally everything and be able to answer all question correctly?
This is the SDMB. We debate all sorts of things we can’t affect. Why should we make an exception here?
Besides, Ed could have posted the OP then locked the thread, as is sometimes done with administrative announcements. He didn’t. I expect he wanted to know what our reactions would be, whether favorable or not. He’s getting them. I figure it wasn’t just to poll for-and-against, but also to see what the concerns of this community might be.
For instance, a number of us have raised the concern that the present plan might leave us with little ‘new blood’ here. So now, Ed knows we’re worried about that, and I think he’s both smart enough and a decent enough human being to keep an eye on the pace of new memberships, once we get far enough past 4/21 to be able to tell what’s happening. Maybe our fears are overblown. If so, it’s all good. If not, he’s already got it in his head that the system may need tweaking to help us get more new members, and that’s good too. But he wouldn’t know that was a significant concern if we all ‘cep my mouf shut’.*
We’ll do that - but not without commentary and discussion. Not a chance!
*Google it if you don’t get it. And then go here.
Ah. I see.
So I guess this is the closest I am going to get to an answer from you on this matter. I must assume that you would prefer that the Chicago Reader shut down this board, right? I mean, obviously that must be what you would prefer. Anything’s better—even shutting down the board—rather than expecting those who benefit from the board to help pay to keep it afloat. Fine. Gotcha.