Ads . . .

[Partner24]

I have a suggestion.

 

Why not try to offer the board members the opportunity to donate voluntarely until we cover the costs (hosting, URL, etc.) of operating this site? I think Wikipedia use that way to finance itself.

 

We could post a barometer with the goal (500$) and the funds raised to date.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

 

 

 

[Guest JackRiver]

I certainly have no problems with the ads.   We should all be thanking Sanjeev for all he's done rather than complaining about things being in "poor taste".   But then there are lots of people in this world who expect something for nothing.

 

I think Jack River has already done significant damage to this board by the way he kept pushing Ericopoly's buttons trying to get a response.   I can only hope that having the ads is offensive enough to him that he leaves for good.

 

I don't believe that to be a fair portrayal of what happened.  I actually think that whole situation was handled badly and that was in part due to one person having more control of the discourse than others.  Eric should have felt free to continue arguing his side, instead he was told what to do as if he were a child.  I don't make a habit of telling my wife to calm down when she's angry.  It doesn't work.  It makes people dig into their position more.

 

I'm sorry you feel the way you feel, and I wasn't happy when Eric left, but I didn't have anything to do with that, that was more a function of control.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

[Guest JackRiver]

...we, the members, supply the content which makes for a sort of quid pro quo (i'm trying to dispel the notion that the site is provided FREE of charge).

 

Sarcasm?

 

John

 

I'm not following you.  What do you mean to say?

 

Yours

 

Jack River

[zarley]

Zarley, please don't take that tone with me.  If you think I'm giving you BS, then take it somewhere else, but I don't need that type of crap at all, thank you very much!

 

LOL . . . Oh the umbrage!! ;)

 

Listen, this is your board and you can do what you want.  But save the outrage when you get called on being misleading.

 

How the hell do you call any of this misleading?  I told the board right from the beginning that we will eventually use some ads to offset costs.  Zarley, you don't pay a dime to post here, yet I'm stuck with an annual $500 US bill for your pleasure.  Yet, you feel completely fine telling me that I'm feeding you bull. 

 

To date for the two weeks we've had the ads, we've made a grand sum of $4.28 US.  I have no problem with a boardmember telling me that they don't like the ads or the placement of an ad, but you've got to be kidding me when you decide to throw crap in my face for something that you get completely for free.  Are you really that ignorant, or are you just being a wise-ass?  I can only imagine how you actually treat a service provider that charges you for something.     

 

This'll be my last post on this, but I think it's necessary to sum up what I've posted regarding ads.

 

1. I recognized the need for ads.

2. I indicated that I thought the in-thread ads were overly intrusive.

3. I noted that Sajeev's initial characterization of the in-thread ads was misleading (ads at the end of long threads <> ads in all threads).

4. Sanjeev got upset with me for observing that distinction, and seems to have extended my comments to include the use of ads at all (which was not my point).

 

Frankly, I'm surprised at the response to this; it seems out of proportion to my comments about the in-thread ads. 

 

Finally, Sanjeev, you should probably work on the relevance of the ads if you want them to get any traction.  Right now I'm looking at ads for realtors in Fairfax, VA -- those aren't going to generate many clicks regardless of their placement.

[Guest JackRiver]

...we, the members, supply the content which makes for a sort of quid pro quo (i'm trying to dispel the notion that the site is provided FREE of charge).

 

Sarcasm?

 

John

 

I'm not following you.  What do you mean to say?

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

Are you serious that you believe our comments on the board create a substantial quid-quo-pro considering Sanjeev has a very real cost of $500/year?  Or are you being sarcastic?

 

John

 

Stop for a second and think about what you are saying to me.  That the content we collectively build on this site is worth less than 500 dollars per year.  I reject that idea.

 

To others who summarily dismiss such discussions:

 

A debate on ads on a web page or a debate on the benefits that may accrue (an option) to someone in control of this site is just as germane to investing and thinking as a harder topic of balance sheets and income statements.  I am a little surprised that others here don't see this too.  You don't have to agree with me, but I sincerely think it a valid position to take.  But let's go through it for those who care:

 

For starters, nothing in life is free.  That may seem quaint or trite to some of you, but it is classic Buffett / Munger.  From the WallMart example that is so often cited, purchasing managers don't accept so much as even a cup of coffee. 

 

Second, right now it's about covering the 500 dollars per year with ads you click through on, but later it may be banner ads, and if ever enough incentive (money) is provided it may well be manipulative ads and large profits.  I don't believe Parsad would do this, but for a mere 500 dollars isn't it better we not go down that road.  On the front of this site is a picture of Ben Graham.  As you all know, he was known for talking freely about investments.  Ads on this site don't seem to me to follow that tradition although I'm sure he sold his books and taught his classes for profit.  That's my opinion and from reading the replies, it looks like I'm a minority of one.  Five hundred dollars and a bit of time did not seem enough of a hurdle to part from this notion.  I used the words poor taste as a subtle way of saying no ads.

 

As to control, I think this is a wonderful topic.  I think there is a sort of group mentality building that won't allow for this to be freely discussed or understood.  It gets boiled down to snips that Parsad is giving up his time and 500 dollars, but no one ask what he gets in return.  If you could step outside for a bit many of you would understand that my comments aren't meant to be personal. 

 

Control does not rest solely with the ability to kick someone off the board or silence the discussion.  It can manifest itself in other ways more subtle yet more onerous.  It can sway the discussion.  It can mislead the members.  But others aren't willing to see this now because what the heck does it have to do with ads?  What the heck does it have to do with ads?

 

There was something in Parsad's post that seem to suggest a burden.  My replies were an attempt to call foul.  That more benefit accrues to him than the value of a small bit of his time and 500 dollars per year, and that we aren't getting something for nothing.

 

Parsad, the control resides with you, but once again I alone ask, no ads.  My offer stands as before, 51% control and I will gladly take over all burdens.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Parsad]

...we, the members, supply the content which makes for a sort of quid pro quo (i'm trying to dispel the notion that the site is provided FREE of charge).

 

Sarcasm?

 

John

 

I'm not following you.  What do you mean to say?

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

Are you serious that you believe our comments on the board create a substantial quid-quo-pro considering Sanjeev has a very real cost of $500/year?  Or are you being sarcastic?

 

John

 

Stop for a second and think about what you are saying to me.  That the content we collectively build on this site is worth less than 500 dollars per year.  I reject that idea.

 

To others who summarily dismiss such discussions:

 

A debate on ads on a web page or a debate on the benefits that may accrue (an option) to someone in control of this site is just as germane to investing and thinking as a harder topic of balance sheets and income statements.  I am a little surprised that others here don't see this too.  You don't have to agree with me, but I sincerely think it a valid position to take.  But let's go through it for those who care:

 

For starters, nothing in life is free.  That may seem quaint or trite to some of you, but it is classic Buffett / Munger.  From the WallMart example that is so often cited, purchasing managers don't accept so much as even a cup of coffee. 

 

Second, right now it's about covering the 500 dollars per year with ads you click through on, but later it may be banner ads, and if ever enough incentive (money) is provided it may well be manipulative ads and large profits.  I don't believe Parsad would do this, but for a mere 500 dollars isn't it better we not go down that road.  On the front of this site is a picture of Ben Graham.  As you all know, he was known for talking freely about investments.  Ads on this site don't seem to me to follow that tradition although I'm sure he sold his books and taught his classes for profit.  That's my opinion and from reading the replies, it looks like I'm a minority of one.  Five hundred dollars and a bit of time did not seem enough of a hurdle to part from this notion.  I used the words poor taste as a subtle way of saying no ads.

 

As to control, I think this is a wonderful topic.  I think there is a sort of group mentality building that won't allow for this to be freely discussed or understood.  It gets boiled down to snips that Parsad is giving up his time and 500 dollars, but no one ask what he gets in return.  If you could step outside for a bit many of you would understand that my comments aren't meant to be personal. 

 

Control does not rest solely with the ability to kick someone off the board or silence the discussion.  It can manifest itself in other ways more subtle yet more onerous.  It can sway the discussion.  It can mislead the members.  But others aren't willing to see this now because what the heck does it have to do with ads?  What the heck does it have to do with ads?

 

There was something in Parsad's post that seem to suggest a burden.  My replies were an attempt to call foul.  That more benefit accrues to him than the value of a small bit of his time and 500 dollars per year, and that we aren't getting something for nothing.

 

Parsad, the control resides with you, but once again I alone ask, no ads.  My offer stands as before, 51% control and I will gladly take over all burdens.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see Jack, this is the whole problem I have with people like you.  You see this as something that can easily be handed off to someone else...that there is no sort of emotional or vested interest in the relationships built here.  To you this is just another forum.  To me this is over seven years of work, shared knowledge and intimate friendships with other wonderful investors.  Do you actually think that $500 from you, and I would let all these people who use it be subjected to your idea of what it is?  You haven't got the faintest idea of what this forum means to the people who use it, and you certainly have no comprehension of what it means to me.

 

I thank everyone who has supported my decisions presently and in the past, for the wonderful friendships over the years, and all your contributions.  But I've had enough of this bitching and complaining from a handful of people, who decide to ruin the environment for everyone else.  So the ads are going to stay the way they are, and this site will run for free with no compromises on the culture we've helped create over the years. 

 

But for you Jack...I'm going to do you a favor in the same manner which you've so graciously offered your services.  My offer to you is if you want to stay, then you can pay $500 regardless.  Everyone else gets to use the site for free!  If you don't want to use our board, feel perfectly free to cancel your membership.  If you don't know how, let me know and I'll be more than happy to do it for you. 

[Guest JackRiver]

...we, the members, supply the content which makes for a sort of quid pro quo (i'm trying to dispel the notion that the site is provided FREE of charge).

 

Sarcasm?

 

John

 

I'm not following you.  What do you mean to say?

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

Are you serious that you believe our comments on the board create a substantial quid-quo-pro considering Sanjeev has a very real cost of $500/year?  Or are you being sarcastic?

 

John

 

Stop for a second and think about what you are saying to me.  That the content we collectively build on this site is worth less than 500 dollars per year.  I reject that idea.

 

To others who summarily dismiss such discussions:

 

A debate on ads on a web page or a debate on the benefits that may accrue (an option) to someone in control of this site is just as germane to investing and thinking as a harder topic of balance sheets and income statements.  I am a little surprised that others here don't see this too.  You don't have to agree with me, but I sincerely think it a valid position to take.  But let's go through it for those who care:

 

For starters, nothing in life is free.  That may seem quaint or trite to some of you, but it is classic Buffett / Munger.  From the WallMart example that is so often cited, purchasing managers don't accept so much as even a cup of coffee. 

 

Second, right now it's about covering the 500 dollars per year with ads you click through on, but later it may be banner ads, and if ever enough incentive (money) is provided it may well be manipulative ads and large profits.  I don't believe Parsad would do this, but for a mere 500 dollars isn't it better we not go down that road.  On the front of this site is a picture of Ben Graham.  As you all know, he was known for talking freely about investments.  Ads on this site don't seem to me to follow that tradition although I'm sure he sold his books and taught his classes for profit.  That's my opinion and from reading the replies, it looks like I'm a minority of one.  Five hundred dollars and a bit of time did not seem enough of a hurdle to part from this notion.  I used the words poor taste as a subtle way of saying no ads.

 

As to control, I think this is a wonderful topic.  I think there is a sort of group mentality building that won't allow for this to be freely discussed or understood.  It gets boiled down to snips that Parsad is giving up his time and 500 dollars, but no one ask what he gets in return.  If you could step outside for a bit many of you would understand that my comments aren't meant to be personal. 

 

Control does not rest solely with the ability to kick someone off the board or silence the discussion.  It can manifest itself in other ways more subtle yet more onerous.  It can sway the discussion.  It can mislead the members.  But others aren't willing to see this now because what the heck does it have to do with ads?  What the heck does it have to do with ads?

 

There was something in Parsad's post that seem to suggest a burden.  My replies were an attempt to call foul.  That more benefit accrues to him than the value of a small bit of his time and 500 dollars per year, and that we aren't getting something for nothing.

 

Parsad, the control resides with you, but once again I alone ask, no ads.  My offer stands as before, 51% control and I will gladly take over all burdens.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see Jack, this is the whole problem I have with people like you.  You see this as something that can easily be handed off to someone else...that there is no sort of emotional or vested interest in the relationships built here.  To you this is just another forum.  To me this is over seven years of work, shared knowledge and intimate friendships with other wonderful investors.  Do you actually think that $500 from you, and I would let all these people who use it be subjected to your idea of what it is?  You haven't got the faintest idea of what this forum means to the people who use it, and you certainly have no comprehension of what it means to me.

 

I thank everyone who has supported my decisions presently and in the past, for the wonderful friendships over the years, and all your contributions.  But I've had enough of this bitching and complaining from a handful of people, who decide to ruin the environment for everyone else.  So the ads are going to stay the way they are, and this site will run for free with no compromises on the culture we've helped create over the years. 

 

But for you Jack...I'm going to do you a favor in the same manner which you've so graciously offered your services.  My offer to you is if you want to stay, then you can pay $500 regardless.  Everyone else gets to use the site for free!  If you don't want to use our board, feel perfectly free to cancel your membership.  If you don't know how, let me know and I'll be more than happy to do it for you. 

 

Parsad

 

I don't feel as if anyone was bitching and complaining.  I voiced an opinion of no ads and added some reasoning why I feel this way.  My point of asking for 51% control in return for my 500 dollars was not meant to cheapen the site's value but to show that the site has more value to the person in control than that of the cost incurred.  There was a false notion that you do what you do at a net negative and that we do what we do for free.  I think that is an oversimplified view of reality, and I was trying to justify my point of view.

 

This is not personal.  Please go back and read my post, they are not intended to be personal or better yet, personal attacks.  Now read your replies to me.  You will totally disagree with me, but I think it is clear that you get to say what you want in any tone you want and someone like me has to partially bite his tongue or he's asked to leave.  That's part of the point I was trying to make, and it is what it is (you control the site), but that doesn't mean I should pretend that it is otherwise.

 

In closing, your reply to me seems to suggest some previous slight on my part.  That somehow I'm bad.  You refer to people like me and go on to describe people like me.  Where is this coming from?  What did I do?  If it's the Eric thing again, remember, he sent me an email asking me if I felt used and all I did was reply back by asking what's with the weird email?  Is that what's bringing me this scorn?  

 

Yours

 

Jack River

[Guest JackRiver]

John

 

Stop for a second and think about what you are saying to me.  That the content we collectively build on this site is worth less than 500 dollars per year.  I reject that idea.

 

Jack, I am glad we agree! In fact, I planned on pooling the content from various web forums into bundles, securitizing them through an SPIE (Special Purpose Internet Entity), and then selling those securities globally to investors on the world-wide web.  Since you are certain that the value of this content is greater than $500/year, I will give you a generous discount and sell you this content for only $2500. (That's a $500/year perpetuity discounted at 10% and then given a margin of safety of 50%.)  Since this is a value investing board, I think we can both agree this security should be given a AAA rating.

 

I will be contacting you at your primary email, [email protected].  I will be using my Nigerian Royalty email account, so you know I'm legit.  Take care!

 

 

 

John

 

I'll look past the insults til later and suggest there is more than one way to think about value.  It's somewhat relative.  What price can we place on someone reading our postings who is able to learn something from the others that allows them to be a better investor by 4% per year?  Is that greater than 500 dollars or 2500 divided by the possible number of benefactors?  Are Warren Buffett's annual letters worth zero?  Is an accounting text worth 150 dollars only?  You are confusing cost and benefit.  Is the value of the white house zero, yellowstone zero?

 

What applies to the group does not necessarily translate directly to specific individuals in that group.  When I suggest the collective post of the group is worth more than 500 per year, that does not mean that I, Jack, will pay 500 dollars to view the post.  For me personally the board may not add value or maybe it does, for others the same holds, but we can't predict before hand who benefits and by how much.  But again and from what I've seen, I believe the site offers more value than 500 dollars per year in the aggregate.  

 

It's not about what I individually/personally would pay.  I wouldn't pay anything for pictures of your family.  You'd probably be willing to pay more than my zero for those pictures especially if they were of dead family members that you loved and they were the only photographs left of them.

 

But I get it, if I'm on the right side of a debate my tone and the way I address other posters is free range, but lord help me if I'm on the wrong side.  I've got to watch what I say and how I say it.  From people who follow Buffett/Munger and Watsa.  Nice.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

 

 

 

[oec2000]

To those of you who are unhappy about the ads, I recommend you take a step back and do an objective cost-benefit analysis. This is a no brainer imo - the annoyance of the ads is so minor compared to the benefits of this board. Think about all the other investing websites that you use daily - how many of them are ad-free, even the ones that are subscription based? If you are not bothered by ads on those sites, why are you bothered by the ads here?

 

Where is the spirit of give and take? Many of us here would gladly spend way more than $500 and endure many hours of travel to attend BRK and FFH AGMs. Yet here we are complaining about a few inconsequential ads. Considering how much we can gain intellectually and financially from this board, this is a really petty issue to get all hot and bothered about.

 

As for Jack's comments on the issue of control, I believe most of us here do not begrudge Sanjeev having control considering the effort that he has put in. You may not agree with him on everything (and not everyone is ever going to) but he has been quite even-handed from my experience. Your offer to pay him $500 in return for control is not only arrogant but presumptuous too - what makes you think that other board members would want you to be in control?

 

So what if he should make $1 or $1m from this site? So what if his efforts are driven purely by his own self-interest? Let's be brutally honest - we are all here out of self-interest. Don't tell me your posts are solely driven by an altruistic need to benefit others. Your only calculus of whether to stay a member should be based purely on your own cost-benefit analysis - how much he makes or loses is irrelevant. If control matters to you and you can do a better and fairer job, start a competing board and I'm sure members will flock to you.

 

I'm not against criticism of Sanjeev but I am against criticism that is unconstructive and unfair; I am against remarks that are ad hominem or laced with innuendo. Some posters have already said that the ads can be blocked; Sanjeev has said that this is the only extent to which he will add ads; some of us will simply ignore the ads in the same way we ignore them in the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal. If you are still unhappy about the ads, you might want, with others, to offer to pay Sanjeev $500 to do away with them. This is a minor problem with simple solutions - nothing that justifies the levels to which the personal attacks have reached.

 

 

 

[arbitragr]

I think this is getting way out of hand.

 

Obama recently gave a speech in the Middle East. Not sure if you listened to it, but I think it might be a good listen just for some perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tG34VmBucmE

 

Respect and The Golden Rule.

 

Let's move on.

Peace.  :)

[calonego]

The worst part about this is that no one will click on these ads.

 

They aren't THAT annoying and if one finds them that annoying, block them in your browser.

The unfortunate part is that Sanjeev isn't going to make his nut on them as I'm sure most of the recent clicking has been in error, humor, or energy exerted to try and help.

 

Sanjeev, you may be getting hosed on the hosting and domain stuff, $500/yr is a ton of cash.

I was running hosting servers before in some high-tech data-centers for way less, like 10 yrs ago.

 

And there's gotta be a better way to generate some revenue to make the hurdle cost of running the site - not sure how - but I'm behind you on trying to make it break even or profitable. Can the ads be adjusted or focused? Can you sell WT or BL a banner?!    ; )

 

JackRiver - Everyone realizes that the position of S.P. as founder/manager of this 'thing' has a positive PV to himself, or he believes it does, explaining why he won't sell it to you for the nominal annuity payment. But he's still supporting it at a negative cash flow and using his own time to do the admin crap - everyone else gets to read and post, he puts out the trash and mops the floor - we should be grateful.

 

[bookie71]

The ads don't bother me, in fact I really hadn't paid attention to them.

I often wonder if Parsad ever sleeps or has another life, he is constantly putting up excellent articles and sites. 

I would like to thank him for all his efforts.

Chuck

[Guest JackRiver]

All I can say is either I need to write better or you guys need to read what I write better.  I don't write well.  My apologies.

 

A couple others have voiced their opinion about the ads.  They were more concerned with placement, content, and color.  They had no problem with ads per se.

 

I voiced my opinion that I think there should be no ads.  It's just my opinion.  I gave some reasons why I felt this way which can basically be summed up as:  simple ads today may eventually lead to an undesirable influence on the board in the future and if the annual cost was only 500 dollars, then maybe it was better for Parsad to eat that cost.  

 

Now I may have slightly blurred another point, that is the point of control.  That flows from Parsad eating the 500 dollars and others comments that the cost and effort was some how burdensome or that the site was provided for free to us.  I tried to make the case that any benefits from control of the site, and there are varied benefits, should already justify the cost out of the owners pockets (at only 500 dollars), and furthermore, the notion that the site is free to the user was not the proper way to view our contributions.  That our contributions have value.  A quid pro quo of sorts.  

 

I wasn't making personal attacks.  I wasn't trying to be argumentative.  I wasn't meaning to insult anyone.  Just stating my opinion and trying to back it up with my reasons for those opinions.  There was a snipe as to maybe I should pay the cost.  I responded to that with my logic that the person in control should pay that cost.  There was snips about the site being free.  I responded to that with my logic that the members also give in return.  

 

Unfortunately during these discussions there were real time examples of how control can can squelch discussion.  Pointing out to some members that they are free to leave if they don't agree is an example of that.  Not unlike a husband, who makes the money, saying to his wife, who stays home with the kids, "well if you don't like it you can leave."  That's not a healthy dialogue.  It's a good example of control gone bad.  

 

Lastly, I think these types of discussions seem irrelevant to most of you.  I don't see it that way.  I think they are good.   They help us see how others think.  They help us better understand human nature, incentives, etc...  It's been said repeatedly that other sites have ads and that they do.  They also have a lot of slop.  I can't do anything about the control issue other than to voice my opinions about possible negatives that can arise if they are not freely debated.  I can't do anything about the ads other than to voice my opinion that I believe it would be best with no ads.  I am not in the least distracted by the ads.  That was not my point in the opposition to them.  If I offended Parsad or others with my offer for 51% control, it was not intended so.  I was trying to further stress the point that control had value greater than 500 measly dollars.

 

I think this discussion has value.  It may not be equitable to the market value of fairfaxes or berkshires securities portfolios, but I think it has value, and I think net, it ads value.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

[JEast]

The header and footer banners are fine.

 

However, the banner that looks like a posting at the bottom is a little annoying.

 

 

Cheers

[Parsad]

Unfortunately during these discussions there were real time examples of how control can can squelch discussion.  Pointing out to some members that they are free to leave if they don't agree is an example of that.  Not unlike a husband, who makes the money, saying to his wife, who stays home with the kids, "well if you don't like it you can leave."  That's not a healthy dialogue.  It's a good example of control gone bad.

 

Unfortunately in this case, you would be the husband Jack.  If you want to use this analogy, then let me explain it to you more clearly:

 

I'm looking after the kids, cleaning up as Calongeo put it, and staying awake at night making sure they are fed.  On top of that, I'm paying the household bills while YOU in particular, are sitting on your fat ass watching tv and asking me to get you a beer.  I'm not asking for much.  Yes, it is only $500.  But that is $500 that I put out.  At the same time, you tell me if I don't like it, that you are willing to watch the kids and I can get the hell out of Dodge.  Problem is that they are MY kids.  I raised them and I nurtured them (the collective board as a whole) over the years.  And that is what you don't understand, no matter how much you explain it to the board.  

 

Ericopoly just came back.  He's a member of the board...one of my kids.  We've all been through alot together with Fairfax while you were an absentee father.  We may fight, but he came back and I'm happy.  I should never have stepped in between you and him...it almost cost me a family member and a very good one.  I didn't boot him off...he had chosen to leave on his own and he came back when he felt he wanted to.  That's how family works!  I'm not going to boot you off either.  You're like an adolescent child...petulant, self-righteous, arrogant, gruff and misguided.  You don't understand what you have but I think many of our core do.  

 

I never expected much from any boardmember for the work I do...not even a thank-you...does any parent expect anything from their children?  I never sought any monetary compensation.  All the meetings I set up outside of the board, the interviews I did in the past and currently are trying to do, the favors I've pulled for boardmembers on the side...never asked for anything.  I decided to put the ads in to pay for the costs, like a mother taking in boarders.  I wasn't looking to my kids for a handout.  But a couple of my kids tell me that they don't want me renting out part of their family home.  That "It doesn't feel right."  I'm expected to either take the handout and feel beholden to my kids (culture gets influenced), or not supplement my income (eat the cost).  

 

So in that context, how do you expect me to feel Jack?  Perhaps, it would be better if you just went back to posting, and let me run the site as I see fit.  We've had it for over seven years, and it still continues to run without significant impact to the users.  In fact, it's a much better site than anything we've had before.  I don't expect all my decisions to be universally appealing, but I try and do what is best for the overall user, which I happen to be one of...that means no cost to anyone, including myself.  Cheers!      

[Guest JackRiver]

Parsad

 

All I can say is that, to my bones, I don't believe I have said or done anything that deserves this level of ire.  However, you and other members and your replies to me suggest otherwise.  I've stated my case over and over.  I ask that you take the time to go back and read my posts, but for the sole purpose of making sure you've convicted a guilty man.

 

As for the Eric situation.  All I did was comply with your request to forward you his email that he sent to me.  I assumed that you agreed with me that his question of my "feeling used by OEC" was kind of weird.  In my reply to you I told you that it was no bother other than being a little weird.  I totally disagreed with what happened after, but we were asked to stop the conversation.  I complied.  Eric's email to me was fine and appropriate in my opinion.  My response, asking him openly what's with the weird email (the do i feel used line), was totally appropriate in my opinion.  Later you came up with an email policy that seemed even weirder than anything to that point, but that's irrelevant to the fact that I can't figure out why you and others feel I've done something wrong.

 

This is a little bit insane.  You and a few others are slinging insults at me left and right while at the same time telling me I'm the bad guy. 

 

I come here because a few guys post some really thoughtful stuff.  Ericopoly, Mungerville, and watsa is a r hero come to mind among others.  On the other hand, I believe you and others have grossly mischaracterized me, but I'm the only one who sees it this way.  I get that now.  I get it.

 

Yours

 

Jack River

[turar]

Jack, you can use AdBlockPlus (or something similar) and not see any ads at all. Initially I had no idea what this topic was all about, since I don't see any ads. I then realized that I had ABP running. http://adblockplus.org/en/

 

Generally about ads, it's pretty clear that this board is not run for profit, so I don't see what the issue is with a few ads. It sure beats paid membership!

[Guest JackRiver]

Jack, you can use AdBlockPlus (or something similar) and not see any ads at all. Initially I had no idea what this topic was all about, since I don't see any ads. I then realized that I had ABP running. http://adblockplus.org/en/

 

Generally about ads, it's pretty clear that this board is not run for profit, so I don't see what the issue is with a few ads. It sure beats paid membership!

 

Turar

 

You are ignoring or haven't read what I wrote in opposition to the ads.  As to your last statement, "it sure beats paid membership."  That all depends, doesn't it?

 

Yours

 

Jack River