Seth, I see you are tilting at windmills as usual :) As far as I can tell, you are never going to get those things acknowledged… (mostly because they are true… *lol*)

Dan,

I’m not sure if you grossly distorted what I said on purpose but it certainly looks like it…

here is what I said:

“If the NYT ran a poll that showed that *the vast majority* of readers would prefer that info to be segregated somewhere where it could be easily avoided, would that matter to you?

I think it should!” {emphasis just here to make my point]

and here is what you responded to Seth who brought up my post:

“If the NYT doesn’t obey *a small number* of self-deluded readers in this case” {my emphasis]

if at this point, you truly believe that it is laughable that the needs and wants of the users should be taken into consideration (that if the vast majority of long term readers would rather be able to read the paper version of the NYT without giving up the ability to watch the Olympic games without already knowing who won, the almighty NYT should just decline it…), I fear for the well being of your new project (you should have learned this basic lesson when your first project failed — it’s prohibitively expensive not to do so).

Delia

P.S. and let’s not pretend the NYT has no financial interest in this… from the short term business POV, they would *love* to plaster that stuff on the front page asap so they would sell more copies of that particular issue. Horrible idea! if that would be pissing off the loyal long term paper readership…I’m having a hard time believing you just don’t get this. And to say they are just doing it in the interest of solid journalism! yeah, right… and I got a bridge to sell you! (in Brooklyn); this is the ind of stuff that has been bothering Seth for a long time — as it should! D.