How do you feel about a membership fee for A2K?

That idea went out with the Salem witches. Same with baseball players saying "flied out", and not "flew out".

I 'll take your word for it.
I dunno much about baseball. I think there 's a wooden club involved somehow.

I wish accurate gunnery were the "national passtime".





David

Since we already have moderators ( Didn't you know about this?), the small stipend would be to reward Craven and the moderators for their hard work.

They must be the most reluctant moderators in all of the internet.

Whether or not the moderators are paid is an issue for the owner(s) to deal with.

If the point of a fee is to provide income to the owner, I have no problem with it. It is absolutely his right to make money on something he built and maintains. He can do this through ad revenue or membership fees. I seem to recall that there used to be ads in this forum. If my memory serves, then it was either the choice of the owner to remove them or the amount of traffic couldn't sustain advertisements.

If Craven or whomever now owns this site wishes to charge a fee for access, that's A-OK with me, and assuming I didn't consider it ridiculous, I would almost surely pay it.

If the intent of a fee was to somehow filter users, it would be a mistake because it would not work. The ability to pay a fee will not insure quality of discussion.

If the intent was to be able to afford to pay full time, more aggressive moderators (frankly, I see no evidence that they currently exist, but happy to take your word on it), I think it would be a mistake for the reasons I previously outlined.

Craven doesn't owe the continuance of this site to anyone. If it is costing him an unacceptable amount of money without corresponding value, he should charge a fee or pull the plug. I'll miss it, but I'll understand.

I can imagine though that quite a few "regulars" are not in the financial position to pay a fee and the charging of one will see them depart. In the case of a few, this would be greatly welcomed by me, but for the most part, I would miss those that were lost; even (and especially) the ones with whom I seldom, if ever, agree.

Are you a personal friend of Craven or are you privy to any complaints by him about the finances of this website? Or are you simply possessed of a generous and just soul?

I don't get his purpose. It seems he just wants to stir up we old geezers.

Ok. Miller is a poster of old/abuzz with varied agendas. She or he has many names. Occasionally sane. Please do not feed.
Almost as racist as Pamela.

and wait to see hate posts to me.

all in all, quite kakky.

Thanks, he's new to me.

David, there is no evidence available to Roger, because he is totally incorrect about his conclusions. When I posted on A2K as New Haven, I couldn't have made comments about A2K on Abuzz, because, there was no Abuzz at that time. Moreover, why would Roger become upset about who I post as?

The guy who posts on A2K is not the original Bobsal and I don't know who he is.

Poor Roger!

i know where the Abuzz posts are and I could probably post them all here on A2K.

But, poor old Roger, is having memory problems. Aren't you Roger.

Recall, that when I posted on A2K as New Haven, the old Abuzz had already disappeared into thin air. Now if Abuzz was gone, how could I have posted on Abuzz, as Dr. KAK, about my posting on A2K? Impossible!

Roger, you need to get your facts straight. Right?

Of course, there's moderation on this site. And, I've been asked several times via e-mail to be a moderator.

So is the point that you know for a fact what I was predicting, that finding Hamsters to work is a problem?

OSSBUCO: Do you remember, when you not only called me a racist, but also called me an anti-semite? I do.

What did you do, when you found out I was a Jewish woman?

so a jewish woman can't be racist or anti-semite?

just asking

There is no doubt in my mind that Miller/Foofie (once Dr. KaK) is a viciously hateful racist--but that is not the point.

This morning, i could not connect to this site with Google Chrome. I could not connect to this site with Firefox. I finally connected with I.E., which is the nightmare browser, where you can ask it to laod a page, and then go make coffee and scrambled eggs with bacon, and come back to eat your breakfast while you wait for it to finish loading.

I have frequently had to jump through ludicrous hoops to log in to my account once i am here. So my answer is no, i am not willing to pay for a poor quality of unreliable service.

I 've never had problems even remotely resembling those on this site.
I think that better people just get a finer quality of experience on it.





David

Which would not, of course, explain your experience.

I think it's a very bad idea. Just because you think it's a good idea does not mean others feel the same way. It's not the money that I'm unable to afford, but the idea that everything seemingly has a price. I subscribe to the NYTimes, thewashingtonpost, and there is even talk about a future fee to use the Internet. Also, there are free message boards throughout the net. When Yahoo shut down its message forums, I went looking for similar boards. I have signed up to a couple of them and have even posted there. Besides, one of the entertainment values of message boards is that they come free of charge, without strings attached.

I'm curious, if you are not the moderator of this board, why are you so interested in seeing a fee imposed?

No I would not pay for the privilege of interacting with other members. Why? For spite! I wouldn't want most members to think I value interacting with them, to the point of paying for it. However, those posters that are not in that category know who they are, in my opinion. The good have to suffer for the bad. Standard operating procedure in history.

Could be your ISP, not a2k.
Nevertheless, I agree. I cannot see the value of a paid site.
Donations, gear, ads, all fine with me.