This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
In summary: Q: "Does your standard contract entitle you to all of a site's revenue, even that which was not generated by your members?" A: "Please forget that question and focus on how much international business we represent, instead." Much better answers would have included "no" or "we are perfectly willing to work out case-by-case agreements." Instead we get an incredibly obvious runaround. Dodging the question is a sign of weakness; taking it on lets you at least try to turn it to a good (or better) light. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree completely; it was conducted by email which unfortunately doesn't really give the ability to press for a direct answer, especially as they can just refuse to do the interview with us. However, as you said, it is so obvious that they are taking readers for idiots and I think most people can see that, which in a way answers the questions for both the interviewer and readers. Tris 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments from feedback form - "this website is really good. i..."
this website is really good. it has got all the information i need for my college course —126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)