Actually, Craig, my comments weren't in reference to you. For some reason, my posts are having massive delays in going up, so it made my comments disjointed to the conversation. In fact, my second comment shouldn't even exist, as I thought I deleted it. *sigh* My apologies.
On Feb 2, 7:21 am, Craig <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 3, 12:28 am, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, being rude about the issue is the best way to handle it? > > I stated that the beta site is irrelevant to most users. (...such as > all the external links on the web) I stated that BGG being down > impacts a huge number of people, just as if wikipedia or imdb or > whatever were down. Those are simply facts. I also suggested that if > there is a static version that beta testers have access to, it could > have been made what the public site points to. What do you find rude > about this series of factual statements? > > > The people that run BGG do more than most people ever imagine and for > > their "pay" it's pretty damned impressive for a FREE site. > > Quite true. Not inconsistent with anything I said, either. However, it > does remind me that the site makes revenue from ads, which therefore > means that the static pages being offline reduces income, so it seems > to me that not having the public site point to the frozen copy is a > lose/lose scenario. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BGG Down" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/BGG_down?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
