Subject:
|
Re: Meta Question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:39:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8133 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Timothy Gould wrote:
> > That seems to be the consensus. But I don't see any Rock Raiders offshoot
> > sites, which from my external perspective makes it look less about format,
> > and more about cherry-picking... BICBVW!
>
> And there I was thinking it might only be for themes lots of people were
> interested in.
Agreed - it also makes good business sense. What is your basis for assuming the
former possibility and disregarding the latter?
> Well <http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=3574 MOCpages> breaks even but
> <http://www.classic-space.com/comment.php?comment.news.31 CSF> has, until
> quite recently been run purely out of pocket. I realise that research is a
> bit slower than hand-waving economics but it does have its own rewards.
I was responding to "I have my doubts that anyone even could [turn a profit]" -
by sourcing all my figures and calculations and noting my assumptions, I made it
easier to pinpoint fallacies in my reasoning and thus provided a reasonable
basis to refute my suggestion. If you would humour me, maybe you could explain
which assumptions were too liberal, because your research seems to back up my
'hand-waving economics'.
Also - I quite clearly stated my reluctance to go back over 4 years worth of
posts at the start of this thread, so I think your sarcasm is somewhat
misplaced, if not secretly ironic.
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Meta Question
|
| (...) And there I was thinking it might only be for themes lots of people were interested in. (...) Well (URL) MOCpages> breaks even but (URL) CSF> has, until quite recently been run purely out of pocket. I realise that research is a bit slower than (...) (17 years ago, 17-Jan-08, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
