Nor was Drew's agenda something we need to guess at. In his own words, the past postings were the "greatest asset" he was buying and he said they would only be available to those who subscribed. I'm another who was happy to take legal action (I get top drawer City of London IP advice for free) if he had proceeded and taken my freely-given contributions, whatever their value, and made them a revenue-generating private asset. Now they are being left publically available, even if it is to encourage subscriptions, I'm less outraged by his high-handed behaviour and no longer see it tantamount to naked copyright theft. But I won't think of subscribing and quite understand why Andrew Rodney might wish to have his postings removed.
Just posted by Drew Strickland in a thread in the new forums:
" The current archive that started, I believe back in 2000, and going until April 21st, 2006 will remain freely viewable regardless of any votes.
What will be up for a vote is whether we continue to update the archive with 3 month old material going forward."
OK, who is going to pay for a homemade site that is missing the very thing that gave it value: Talent & experience.
The manner in which the owner is weaseling around with the archive posts is disappointing.