|
|
Comment Text |
Response Date |
| 1. | If the new features were going to be supported with donations, they'd have to be good enough that I'd want to pay for them. | May 20, 2009 2:30 PM |
| 2. | Sorry I cannot contribute. I haven't the money. | May 20, 2009 8:43 AM |
| 3. | i'd love to donate $$ but am strapped. if i could i'd donate $20/month - that's reasonable. it's about the same as satellite radio or movie rentals, but not as outrageous as cable. | May 20, 2009 7:28 AM |
| 4. | If it is not broke dont fix it,leave well enough alone your site can stand on its content alone | May 19, 2009 5:45 PM |
| 5. | whatever is necessary to cover the costs for creating and disseminating a quality product. I really have no idea what the costs would be. I only gave a donation I would find feasible for me. | May 18, 2009 10:58 AM |
| 6. | There was a lot of realestate for advertising in the new example. I'm not well off. | May 17, 2009 12:19 PM |
| 7. | It is worth much more, but my funds are flimsy. | May 16, 2009 9:07 PM |
| 8. | start with 100 willing to go higher | May 16, 2009 12:51 PM |
| 9. | Real news online is, and will remain free, irrespective of Rupert Murdoch's and the AP's histrionics to the contrary. Donations may help, and were the revenue available I might consider donating.
CAVEAT: subscription models serve to limit distribution, not encourage. And as John Perry Barlow said in "Slouching Towards Hollywood - Creative Livelihood in an Economy of Verbs": For ideas, fame IS fortune.
-dcm | May 16, 2009 6:41 AM |
| 10. | keep up the good work! | May 16, 2009 1:50 AM |