Replies to post #18 on Poster Filtering (IGNORE)

[Bob Zumbrunnen]

Then we completely and utterly disagree about the definitions of "crapper" and "quality content".

Anyone who needs to be told who is credible and who isn't, and would "ignore" someone only on someone else's say-so, quite simply should be putting their money into CD's rather than equities.

you leave the public users NO TOOL to manage.

The "Next" button IS such a tool. I swear, you're making a stronger case for removal of free filtering with each post you make on the subject and really should bow out and let others make the case for you.

And if you hadn't noticed, the person you labeled a "crapper" has been posting that though he doesn't like the concept of filtering, he thinks it would be worse to limit it than to leave it limitless.

[Cassandra]

Corp Buyer: The features you desire are offered to paying members, but for some reason you choose to be a freebie. It seems odd that you would expect that certain features provided to paying members be offered to those who do not subscribe.

iHub may may make a few cents a month in advertising revenue because you use the site, but it would not likely support the extra expense of the premium features you request or expect.

Why do you think it's appropriate to ask (or insist) that iHub give away premium services that others have chosen to pay for? Is that fair to the paying members? If you get premium services for free, should paying members then ask for refunds?

I guess I don't understand the problem. iHub offers limited features for free to anyone who complies with the TOU. Anyone who wants premium features may pay for them, you included.

If you lack the funds, perhaps you could ask Bob and Matt for a donation.