On Nov 4, 12:40 am, Robert Cohen <robtco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 12:06 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" <fin...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> > "Robert Cohen" <robtco...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> > > Competitors and copycats with better mice catchers are welcome,
> > > available space is seemingly infinite.
>
> > Encyclop=E6dia Britannica will do quite nicely, and shelf space
> > hasn't reached a premium quite yet. ;-)
>
> >http://www.britannica.com/
Of course, on-line, you have to
> > sign up and log in, so they can see what you're searching for
> > as well.
>
> They do not get a fee nor a prospect they can call-on from free
> registration?
>
> If so, then I'll be trying 'em too.
>
> Hope it's written more in 6th grade newspaper level lingo, rather than
> the expected esoteric boring academic language that is a turn-off
> particularly to my 50-60-70 percentile mind.
>
> The articles in hard copy BRITTANICA were usually credited-signed,
> which is seemingly preferable to anonimity, and thus implies
> professional responsibility.
>
> So, Hooray for us and to them adapting.
>
> I can't mind ads should they hawk 'em, so long as the damne ads do not
> interfere/influence content.
They get $70 a year after a free trial.
I've subscribed to fee services: here's for instances two:
THE NEW YORK TIMES and SLATE which are both now free.
Do you think fee-based BRITANNICA will stay afloat and triumph in
superiority over freebie WIKI ?
Here in the ****ey real world, "free" has its inevitable way of
getting beaucoup subscribers, despite the usual annoying ads.
If I can't even yet motivate myself to subscribe to britannica, then i
have doubts about Brittanica's survival and influence.
Sorry and unfortunately true confession, c'est la vie.
|
